The government’s much-repeated claim that it will build 1.5 million net additional homes by the end of this Parliament is now an object of ridicule, despite multiple claims about making housebuilding regulation light-touch, if not non-existent. The latest credible estimate is that the target will be missed by about 400,000 homes.

Amidst the general gloom, there are some beacons of light, at least from the point of view of news editors. Most notably, the government has let slip that it is considering giving architects protection of function, not just title. This would be an extraordinary initiative, and nobody quite knows if they are serious.

After all, since the Grenfell Tower disaster, the architectural profession has been given a pretty rough ride, in respect of its arrangements for technical education in particular. Is there really going to be a pay-off which make architects king of the castle again? Of course, the golden age where architects were kings is something of a fantasy. It should be noted that where architects had power to match their responsibilities, they did so without protection of function, merely protection of title, introduced by law in 1931.

One has to look carefully at post-World War II history to understand how the profession evolved – in particular as a result of welfare state public sector employment, which resulted in at least half the profession working for councils, health authorities and central government. The demise of the public sector under Margaret Thatcher, and the accompanying attack on private practice through abolition of fee scales (actually not initiated by her), coincided with the economic imperatives of construction companies anxious to reinforce their cash flow position and general importance through design and build contract arrangements.

There is no satisfactory architectural history of this period and the way in which we have reached a position where architects could be described as having ‘responsibility not authority. I have suggested a suitable mantra for the profession to adopt would be ‘no responsibility without authority’.

The Architects’ Registration Board, which government increasingly deferred to on matters of architectural education, appears to have little or no idea about any of this. It would focus the mind of government and the profession were this monopolistic body to be wound up, along with its powers to impose a compulsory tax via its annual fee. This affects all architects by law, but they have no representation on the council of this body. They used to. That sort of thing sparked the American War of Independence.

+++++++++

The roll call of great architects who are passing shows no sign of diminution. We paid tribute to Kongjian Yu at WAF in Miami last month where his practice, Turenscape, won the Landscape of the Year award. Kongjian died in a plane crash in Brazil earlier this year and will be sorely missed. Then we heard that former partners-in-arms, Nick Grimshaw and Terry Farrell had both died, at a more advanced age than Kongjian. Terry spoke at our first WAF, in Barcelona in 2008, and his practice were regular entrants and occasional winners over the years.

Grimshaw have also done well in the WAF Awards, mainly with mega transport projects, London Bridge and Sydney Central Stations. Somebody pointed out that the Sydney project, awarded this year, will improve the lives of 2 per cent of the entire Australian population, which makes use of the station each day. The design approach all goes back to Nick’s tremendous Eurostar terminal at Waterloo, referred to in an excellent talk by practice partner Neven Sidor last month, who has just become the first ‘Grimshaw Fellow’, keeping a connection to the practice while making way for new architectural talent. Like Nick, he is a difficult act to follow.

A truly impressive memorial service was held for Nick in the parish church of the Royal Academy, St James’s Piccadilly, followed by a reception in the Academy, of which he was president for seven years. Speakers at the service were the client for the Eden Project, Tim Smit; practice chairman Andrew Whalley; and sculptor Antony Gormley. A huge turnout-out was a tribute to a figure who was as popular with a wider public as he was with his architect colleagues.

+++++++++

No sooner had we arrive back from WAF that we heard the sad news that Bob Stern had passed away. Bob also attended the first WAF, and stepped up to become chair of the Completed Buildings super-jury. This was supposed to be chaired by Norman Foster, but in the event his practice had a building in the final shoot-out, so had to withdraw. Bob was delighted by our first winners, Grafton Architects, with their Luigi Bocconi university building in Milan. He said it brought to mind the megastructure thinking of the 1960s. That wasn’t Bob’s own architectural style, but he admired those who could do it.

+++++++++

No admirer of architects, it seems, President Trump has cut Federal spending in colleges, affecting various professional courses. It has now been declared that architecture is not a professional course. Where will this madness end? The president has already re-issued his edict from his first presidency that all Federal buildings must be classical or traditional in design. I wonder whether he thinks Trump Tower in NYC falls into either of those categories. Not a Federal building of course, but surely an indication of the aesthetic taste of the leader who has yet to visit his country’s own new-ish embassy in London. Not because of the architecture, you understand, but because it was a ‘bad deal’ to move to Nine Elms. Actually it was a great deal. The sale of the Grosvenor Square building generated enough funding to pay the entire cost of the Kieran Timberlake landmark. President Trump doesn’t like architecture based on environmental design. He likes classicism. I wonder if he will visit the emerging Beirut embassy by Morphosis. I don’t imagine Thom Mayne’s designs are a Trump thing.

+++++++++

Peter Murray, the veteran editor, campaigner, marketeer and man-about-London has formally announced that he will stand for London Mayor in the elections next year. A cycling fanatic and inveterate raiser of funds for good causes through long cycle journey, Murray is certainly fit and sharp enough to do the job, though it will be a tough call persuading the public that what the capital needs is an 80-year-old running it.

On the other hand, the current incumbent is so hopeless that some voters (including you correspondent) would certainly vote for an alternative representing the built environment lobby. All the things that are going wrong in London relate to some aspect of the built environment, particular the housing shortage, which Mayor Sadiq Khan is seemingly incapable of tackling.

Moreover, even if Murray doesn’t win, the attention that will be focussed on housing, transport infrastructure and public realm initiatives could well be helpful , especially since he might be in a position to advise his supporters who to vote for in the likely event of a second-round mayoral shoot-out.

This will be interesting, especially as the NLA (New London Architecture), which Murray co-founded, has a huge network of members/supporters, and is more than capable of providing logistical and communications support.

This could be interesting.