Skip to navigation – Site map

HomeNuméros10-11History of the Hong Kong Institut...

History of the Hong Kong Institute of Architects

Professionalization and its Impact on the Diversity of Competencies
Jen Lam and Sammie Ng
p. 207-229

Abstract

Despite having a key impact on professionalization and design, the role of the professional institute is often taken for granted in the architectural field. This piece centers on the overlooked history of the Hong Kong Institute of Architects (HKIA) to unravel the complex processes of professionalization in a specific spatio-temporal context – Hong Kong. Compared to other countries, the making of architecture in Hong Kong could be vastly different, where theoretic discourses and nationalistic ambitions have been less influential. As the representative, examination, and accreditation body of Hong Kong architects, HKIA would be a pivotal stakeholder in shaping the architectural practice. The institute’s struggle for proper recognition of architects over the years through professionalization would be marked by different and evolving strategies, both inward and outward. It is also emblematic of the struggle between different competencies which makes it challenging to define the role of the architect and consequential when it comes to the profession’s agency in shaping the built environment more broadly.

Top of page

Editor's notes

DOI: 10.17454/ARDETH10-11.12

Full text

1Competency in its simplest definition in relation to professional employment is what makes someone ready for a particular role and perform required tasks (Austin, 2019). In architecture, the spotlight often goes to the “starchitect” or the “master” of landmark buildings, famed for their individual genius. What is often overlooked but increasingly looked at in such a discursive manner is the extent to which professionalization (an arguably collective endeavor) has shaped the ideas surrounding architectural competency and influenced the built environment more broadly.

2Professionalization is defined as a process whereby participation in the profession is increasingly limited through various strategies, often spearheaded by a professional institute (Wilensky, 1964). In Hong Kong, that would be the Hong Kong Institute of Architects (HKIA), which was founded in 1956, and originally named the Hong Kong Society of Architects (HKSA). To understand how architectural competency is constructed and contested by different stakeholders in the specific spatial and temporal context of Hong Kong, we analyze the history of HKIA through the proMultiple Processes of Professionalization by HKIA

3At the beginning of the 20th century, only the colonial government had the power to appoint architects. The Public Health and Building Ordinance 1903 introduced the list of authorized architects (AA) system, whereby the Governor would announce in the Gazette architects, engineers and surveyors, who are “deemed qualified” to submit building plans for the Public Works Department’s approval. 53 years later, the setting up of HKSA marked the beginning of a local group of architects increasingly having a say in defining their profession both within and without. They sought to establish and enforce standards within the profession, distinguish themselves from other professions and gain public and legal recognition.

Professionalization within the systems of HKIA

4A key aspect of professionalization involves increasingly limiting and defining participation in the profession (Wilensky, 1964), and this is achieved by HKIA through its examination system. The then-HKSA would take over from the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) starting from 1970, when RIBA approved HKSA to hold their version of Examination in Professional Practice and Practical Experience as RIBA Part 3 after five years of preparation. The examination tested Hong Kong’s Building Ordinance Cap. 123, Town Planning Ordinance Cap. 131, and Landlord and Tenant Ordinance Cap. 255 along with HKSA’s Codes of Professional Conducts and Scales of Charges which restricts architects’ unprofessional behavior (HKSA, 1971). Although RIBA’s versions were referenced, they were attuned to local conditions. The Scale of Charges covered common Hong Kong multi-story, low-cost housing typologies (HKSA, 1961). In 1972, the new exam arrangement in the 15th Anniversary of the Society marked the transfer of the power from RIBA to HKSA as the importance of local context was stressed in the colonial qualification system. It was in the same year that HKSA was renamed the Hong Kong Institute of Architects (HKIA) in 1972. This was not only a symbolic move, a “recognition of the increased responsibility of the work of the architect” (HKIA, 1973: 7), but perhaps also an assertion of legitimacy of a professional institution. The affix of “H.K.I.A.” was simultaneously introduced for members to professionally represent themselves, with the hope that members will not need to “look overseas for membership but put faith, support and resources in HKIA” (HKIA, 1972: 7).

5The aim of professionalization is not only to ensure architects’ ability in creating safe buildings, but also to maintain their competitiveness in international standards. The logbook assessment format was refined in 1977 to emphasize proper practical experiences, while the case study, which is to ensure sufficient understanding of the processes of a project, was introduced in 1982 (HKIA, 1977; 1982); both assessment criteria were once found in the RIBA system (RIBA, n.d.). Over the years, the HKIA professional assessment has evolved from 2 papers (1971) to 4 papers (1982) to 9 papers (1996). This examination structure can be compared to China’s, where NBAA’s 9-paper exam was developed simultaneously from 1992 to 1995. (The National Architects Association of R.O.C., 2011). Notably, the expanded sections (Paper 3-7) in 1996 mostly pertain to the technical aspects of building and construction under “Architectural Design Application” (fig. 1), which echo Paper 3,4,5,7 and 9 of China’s NBAA’s Grade 1 registered architect assessment (The National Architects Association of R.O.C., 2011). Compared to exams in other countries such as Australia (Table 1), HKIA’s assessment also includes engineering and planning topics on top of legal and architectural knowledge. The average passing rate of each HKIA exam paper remained below 60% in 2020 (HKIA, 2020), which may be considered sufficient evidence of its difficulty. It rigorously tests the competence of Hong Kong architects to handle the dense and hilly environment with comprehensive technical and legal knowledge, which perhaps affords them the capability to lead other building consultants, including engineers and surveyors who were once referred to as “architects” in the AA system under British colonial rule. If limiting the training and access to become an architect is a key aspect of professionalization (Freidson, 1973), developing such a rigorous assessment system is a clear example of how HKIA professionalized the occupation in the territory to maintain architects’ competitiveness in relation to other building professions as well as in international standards.

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

Pathway to become an Architect in Hong Kong. This diagram indicates the path to become an architect in Hong Kong, which include a bachelor’s degree, a master’s degree, a minimum-24-month working experience and a 9-paper Professional Assessment. Also, note the relationship between Authorized Person and Registered Architect. A further exam is needed to be taken for one to sign off building drawings submitted to Buildings Department.

Table 1: Comparison of professional assessments of architects across various countries

Number of Papers Passing Rates (Year)
HKIA 9 59.93 % (2020) (average of 8 written papers)
National Board of Architectural Accreditation (NBAA) (China) 6 (Originally 9 before 2022) NA
Architect Registration Examination (ARE) (U.S.) 6 45%-66% (2020)
Professional Practice Examinations (Singapore) 2 NA
Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) 4 87% (2018/2019)
Architects Accreditation Council of Australia (AACA) 3 85% (2019)

Source: HKIA, NBAA, NCARB, BOA, RIBA, AACA

Facing outward: HKIA’s discursive strategies to build external recognition

6Professionalization also relies on recognition by other stakeholders in society outside the profession. Over time, the organization expanded its impact strategically by interweaving networking, publicity, and most importantly, legislation, in addition to their internal qualification process to promote the exclusivity of architects. Together, these discursive strategies center HKIA as the main architectural organization to interact with the state, other building professions, international organizations as well as frame the public understanding of architects and architecture (Cohen, Arnold, Wilkinson, Finn, 2005; Mieg, Oevermann, 2021).

7Firstly, the long battle for architects’ legal status could be traced back to the 1960s, when HKSA loosely included members from Members of the Institute of Civil Engineers (MICE) and Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (FRICS) (HKSA, 1961). Nowadays, the registration of architects is protected by the Architects Registration Board (ARB) under the Architects Registration Ordinance (ARO) (Cap 408, 1990), ensuring that only HKIA members could be qualified as architects in Hong Kong. HKIA persisted in the ARO as they believed that the legislature was compulsory for the profession to gain “leadership in all matters related to the built and planned environment”, and most importantly, to “command the respect of the Government, commerce, industry and the general public” (HKIA, 1972: 10). It is eminent that the architects, who are led by HKIA, strive to protect their rights as designers and dominate the industry. When the ARO was passed in 1990, the Hong Kong Institute of Architects Incorporation Ordinance (Cap. 1147) was also incorporated. By setting up a Registration Board, HKIA handles issues of disciplinary proceedings and the statutory use of the title “architect”. It also took over partial duties and power of the Building Authority (Haffner, 1989).

8As early as 1962, the need for an Architects’ Ordinance was raised by the HKSA council to protect the title of “architect” and “architecture” (HKSA, 1963). However, contrary to the rapid development of the professional exam system, its progress was particularly slow because both architecturally trained and non-architecturally persons could be named as AAs. Hence, engineers and surveyors were irritated as they believed that their rights as AA may be forfeited, thus losing the job opportunities originally afforded to them (HKSA, 1968). In this light, HKSA had to step back to pacify them by denying that the architects’ registration creates a monopoly. Instead, HKSA framed the effort as putting “in order” the three houses of architects, engineers and surveyors through a joint ordinance and collaborative registration board (HKSA, 1968). Yet, due to the complexities of the conflicting interests, the negotiation on the Bill remained stagnant and the joint board was never established.

9HKIA also capitalized on specific events in their advocacy for the government’s recognition, fitting Wilkensen’s (1964) observations that legal protection of the profession is often prompted by safety concerns. They did so by utilizing the newspaper editorial as a platform for its messages since the 70s (Fig. 2). In 1972, a major landslide in the Mid-Levels led to the collapse of buildings and the loss of 67 lives, alarming the whole city when it came to the safety of architecture in hilly areas. A famous civil engineering-trained “authorized architect” faced 7 summonses in 1973 for failing to comply with the building ordinance in his company’s rebuilding work of the hilly sites. In the end, he was merely fined HKD$1,000 (South China Morning Post, 1974), triggering a huge wave of public opinions. HKIA immediately issued a statement through the press to clarify that he was never its member, thus not an “architect” (Kung Sheung Daily News, 1974). In the same year, the Building (Amendment) Ordinance in 1974 led to the modification of the definition of “authorized architect (AA)” to “authorized person (AP)” (Building Ordinance (Amendments), Cap. 123, 1974). Insignificant as it may sound to the general public, the amendment was crucial in defining the term “architect” and paved the way for the ARO in 1990. This shows how publicity was also a tool to garner public support for legal reform.

Fig. 2

Fig. 2

Collage of HKIA editorials (SCMP, 1974; 1975; 1982; 1991; Wah Kiu Yat Po, 1974; 1979; 1981).

10HKIA argued in various newspaper articles about the necessity of the ordinance by comparing themselves to other professions such as lawyers and doctors who have statutory protection, as well as the existence of an Architects Registration Act in the United Kingdom since 1931. They also complained about how the term “architect” was abused by other consultants who did not have to go through years of training and exams. Over the years, more than 20 HKIA editorials were published to instill a proper understanding of an “architect” in the public realm. As they mentioned in their yearbook when the Architects Registration Bill was gazetted, “the main point [they] are asking for is the protection of the title ‘Architect’ ” (HKIA, 1989: 7). Above all other concerns, HKIA was particular about the limitation of the use of “architect” to ensure the members of the profession are properly acknowledged and respected as the leader of the building team (Haffner, 1989).

11In parallel, HKIA has been getting international recognition to foster reciprocal acknowledgment of its professional license. This is particular for Hong Kong’s situation as a colonized city with a marginalized position in nation-based international architectural organizations. Since its formation, HKIA has actively been involved in various regional and international architectural organizations, such as the East Asia Regional Organization, the Commonwealth Association of Architects (CAA) and the International Union of Architects (UIA), rising to worldwide recognition in the 70s. In 1971, HKIA became one of the founding members of the Architects Regional Council Asia (ARCASIA) along with India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Singapore (ARCASIA, 2010), where the reciprocity of registration of overseas professional qualifications was a major item in its conferences (HKIA, 1973). In 1978, HKIA’s multiple attempts to apply as candidature resulted in it attaining full membership of UIA from an associate membership despite Hong Kong not being a country and its affiliation to RIBA (HKIA, 1978). In the 90s, HKIA was among UIA’s discussions of freeing up services across national boundaries (HKIA, 1995). Ten years after the passing of ARO, HKIA has reached a mutual recognition agreement of qualification with The National Administration Board of Architect Registration (NABAR) of China since 2000, CAA since 2001, The Architects Accreditation Council of Australia (AACA) since 2010, The New Zealand Registered Architects Board (NZRAB) since 2012 (Canberra Accord on Architectural Education, 2017).

12There is also a reinforcing aspect between legal status within the city and international recognition. Specifically, proper statutory status is a criterion when mutual accreditation for architectural education between Hong Kong and other countries (Canberra Accord on Architectural Education, 2017). This suggests that legal status within the city was also relevant for greater international recognition, such that its qualification could also be recognized outside of the city, making its pursuit more important.

13In 1970, the HKIA report wrote: “The buildup of sound relationships with the regional and worldwide parent body must be one of our constant future aims, second only to the development of a stronger Hong Kong Society,” (HKSA, 1971, p.3). This quote suggests that the society’s discursive strategies, despite directed to different stakeholders, are interwoven and interdependent. All its effort in publicity, networking and legislation helped HKIA in building up Hong Kong architects’ authority and legitimacy.

14Yet, it must be noted that even after the ARO was enacted in 1990, HKIA members were still not recognized as the sole building designer. In fact, HKIA approached the government several times for the possibility of self-licensing of AP but received “considerable resistance from the government” in 1993 (HKIA, 1993: 5). Under the current government-controlled system, engineers and surveyors are still allowed to submit plans after passing a further interview to be authorized as AP.

Contested Competencies in the Process of Professionalization and their implications

15Having outlined key strategies and processes in the professionalization of the architecture profession facilitated by HKIA, we move on to discuss how various competencies, including the cultural, creative and critical, have been contested. We observe that HKIA’s role in promoting certain competencies over others is not static, and can be understood in the context of the changing socio-political conditions of Hong Kong.

Cultural Competency - Localization

16Our understanding of HKIA’s origins must be rooted in the context of Hong Kong being a British colony with its unique context and environment compared to the UK. We argue that HKIA’s origins were an example of cultural competency, whereby local architects saw the importance of understanding local contexts for overall society and fought for their rights to take up more space within the field of architecture.

17As explained earlier, prior to HKSA and the ARO, the colonial government mandated who could practice as an architect using the AA List, most on the list were engineers, especially in the post-war period. The heightened need for housing meant that the concern was safety and quantity rather than design. Meanwhile, British architects were appointed to design iconic governmental buildings such as the Supreme Court (1912) and the Central Police Station (1919). The colonial government’s undermining of local architectural talents and thus the neglect of design for the majority was what prompted HKIA to work on improving professional standards and promoting recognition of Hong Kong architects.

18Six years after the Architecture Faculty at the University of Hong Kong was set up by Gordon Brown from Britain and after multiple failed attempts in the 40s, HKSA was established in 1956 with a prominent Chinese architect Gin-Djih Su as the first president (Hong Kong and Far East Builder, 1956). This is more than a century after the British took over Hong Kong Island, and is an important milestone in developing a group of local professional architects. Moreover, the establishment of HKSA membership allowed for multiple ways to be recognized as an architect other than the appointment by the colonial government (although it did not equate to authorization for signing off architectural drawings like an AA), as those who had apprenticed under an architect for more than 8 years could also join. Such resistance to colonial power in the architectural realm was proven successful. In 1969, HKIA’s former Vice-President would rebuke Mr. Daniel Jones, a then-visiting MP from the UK, who had suggested importing a British planner to plan the city in a letter to the press. The Hong Kong architect declared that “I believe the architects here are just as competent if not more so than our colleagues in Britain,” and also questioned their competency: “In Britain, I do not think any architect has ever had the experience of planning to a density of two thousand persons per acre,” (Ouyang, 1969, p. 11). Such a position shows HKSA’s advocacy for local architects who have a better understanding of the built environment and socio-cultural context.

Design Competency – Creativity, Project Management or Building Codes?

19If cultural competency is what differentiates a Hong Kong architect from a British one, design competency is perhaps what differentiates him or her from surveyors or engineers, who we have established as competing with architects for the exclusive right to sign off on architecture projects since British’s AA system and now under the HKSAR’s AP system. However, while creativity would be a competency stressed by HKIA in their earlier discourse and activities, we infer that it is increasingly marginalized at the individual architect level as architects’ role is increasingly managerial within projects. However, as a professional association, HKIA would indirectly influence the design of buildings through building codes.

20In 1991, the then-President wrote in an op-ed following the passing of the ARO that there is an increased role for architects in Hong Kong which is differentiated from others in the building industry such as engineers and surveyors, as they are also concerned with “the ways of life, tradition and culture in a broader sense” (Chung, 1991: 20). He also argued that the architecture profession must differentiate itself from other professions like engineers by showing the public “what [they] can do apart from designing buildings”, which he specifies as having a social mission and conscience (Chung, 1991: 20). There were some attempts in the earlier part of HKIA’s history to play a greater role in influencing the built environment in more visible and creative ways. For example, HKIA submitted comprehensive design plans to the government to redevelop the entire Central district, and promoted them in the press (Ta Kung Po, 1960) (Fig. 3). Though these plans were partly adopted, the association would stop spending similar energy on later planning ideas. Even though a Metroplan Workshop on West Kowloon design was held in 1989, it remained an artistic expression rather than a practical plan.

Fig. 3

Fig. 3

Central District development planning by HKIA that balanced walkability and vehicular access (Tai Kung Po, 1960:1).

21Instead, the present-day examination system emphasizes extensive technical knowledge about regulations and project management. Architects in Hong Kong may indeed have gained “leadership in all matters related to the built and planned environment” (HKIA, 1972, p.10), but perhaps by converging the profession towards what engineers and surveyors can do, while neglecting the development of the design and social consciousness more unique to the role of the architect. While more and more small-/ mid-scale offices with licensed architects are progressively participating in design discourses of the city nowadays, such as One Bite Studio which focuses on placemaking, as well as LAAB that emphasizes fabrication (One Bite Studio, n.d., LAAB, 2022), most architects still take up administrative roles in ‘running projects’ rather than design (Fig. 4). On one hand, this culture results in the marginalization of idealistic design proposals, which are deemed unrealistic. On the other hand, in a city heavily influenced by building codes and developers’ demands, an administrative architect’s leading role in liaison and managing procedures become crucial to balance the economy, safety and function of a building.

Fig. 4

Fig. 4

Conventional organization of the Building Team. Redrawn from Christopher Haffner’s (HKIA’s former president) speech in 1989 (Haffner, 1989).

22If HKIA did not promote an architectural profession that emphasized design, it still had an extensive influence on Hong Kong’s built environment through its engagement in related legislation. They started trying to influence legislation by setting up committees to draft professional reports in response to various bills. A liaison group between the Public Works Department (PWD) and Authorised Architects (AA) was set up in 1959, marking the first of many such bilateral liaison groups which effectively place HKSA and later HKIA firmly in the inner circle of policymaking. By 1971, efforts to engage PWD would be under the Association’s Board of Architecture Practice and it was mentioned in their annual report that the liaison group was an “invaluable link with Government” (HKIA, 1972: .9). In 1991, HKIA had members on 7 governmental committees/ sub-committees, and 12 government-HKIA liaison groups were set up to let HKIA members have their say on matters like codes. They would end up influencing multiple codes related to means of escape, fire safety, thermal transfer, etc. that shaped and restricted architectures in Hong Kong. Therefore, instead of engaging in design discourses and stylistic concerns, the competency to design in this city is inherently shaped by professionalization through codes and procedures, with a more subtle but no less impact on Hong Kong’s built environment.

Marginalized Competency of Criticality

23To maintain the coherency of professionalism, cultures of open and critical debates are often marginalized. A case in point would be the controversy which was caused by then-President Tao Ho’s public comments about the design of the Central Library in 1997. His comments had been perceived as jumping out of line and a breach of the HKIA professional code of conduct, whereby members should not criticize the works of other members in public (Hon, 1997). He emphasized in his defense that the intention of his comments was not to criticize the design abilities of the architects in question, but to question the system, which perhaps explains why it was heavily criticized. He also encouraged fellow HKIA members: “Members of our Institute must seize this golden opportunity of the handover to stand up courageously and to challenge the passive mentality of always saying “Yes, sir!” to asking ‘Why not?’ ” (HKIA, 1997:4). Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, he would be one of the few Presidents to ever encourage such an open culture of being critical in the long line of HKIA’s history.

24The issue of whether the competency of criticality is considered relevant for the architectural profession can also be seen in the gap between the 9-paper ordinance-based assessment and the 6-year education offered in universities in Hong Kong. While university curriculums encourage critical inquiry, the HKIA examination is more about mastery of the existing guidelines. The incongruence between education and practice can also be seen in how there is a reverse correlation between the percentage of HKIA-licensed architects in a school versus its ranking. The ratio of HKIA members (full & associate) to non-HKIA teachers at the top two accredited architecture schools (The University of Hong Kong and The Chinese University of Hong Kong) is only 1:6 while that in Chu Hai College of Higher Education, the lowest-ranked school among the three, is as high as 1:1 (Chu Hai College Department of Architecture, 2018; CUHK School of Architecture, 2019; HKU Faculty of Architecture, 2021). The ratio above indicates that fewer scholars in higher-ranked universities opt for HKIA licenses. Despite having stronger backgrounds and international acclamation, academics engaged in critical research may not find the contrasting focus of the 9-paper professional assessment (which emphasizes technical knowledge) worth undertaking. This is a huge difference from earlier relationships between HKIA and HKU, with scholars highly involved in HKIA’s policies till the 1980s. With this increasing schism between studio course design and real practice, whereby designs based on idealism and critical thinking are being encouraged at school, students who learn architecture are either designing without consideration of context during their studio, or merely rule-following when they get into practice.

Implications of certain competencies being prioritized over others: Homogeneity and Commodification

25Overall, the professionalization process by HKIA can be said to have reduced the diversity of competencies that are deemed relevant to being an architect in Hong Kong. This seems to go against their position when they were first set up. In the earlier days of HKSA, they allowed architects to have diverse design trainings to be recognized as architects. Other than being registered as AA in Hong Kong or the UK, people who apprenticed for 8+ years under an architect were as well eligible as members (HKSA, 1959). For example, member no. 86 Lee Yin Chuen had no professional membership or qualification but was promoted to a full member presumably due to his accumulation of working experience (HKSA, 1959). This condition to membership was removed in 1972, when the society rebranded as a professional institute (HKIA, 1973).

26Meanwhile, RIBA is planning to abandon its existing Parts 1 to 3 assessments and switch to a more flexible system for wider pools of talent (Waite, 2022). We recall a quote from HKSA’s Yearbook in 1962: “[...] when the authorities have full confidence in the integrity of all practising architecture in the Colony that there will be room for a relaxation of the rules” (HKSA, 1963: 4). This quote may have been forgotten in the dust of the Institute’s history, given its current prominence in rule setting and enforcing.

27The other issue is the commodification of architect’s qualification, some of which HKIA itself participates in. On top of paid lectures by HKIA, PassHKIA is a private tutorial website set up by several persons who claimed to have passed the professional assessment of the institute. It provides charged services, which include quizzes on Paper 1-6 to “save time and money for another exam” (PassHKIA, n.d.). The emergence of such a service is an example of how the difficulty of such a critical exam has led to the creation of a market, and those with more financial resources can purchase educational advantages which are then translated to qualifications for greater earning power.

28Another example in which the qualification process becomes subject to the market and therefore susceptible to exploitation is the encouraged year-out practical experience. The year-out experience, equivalent to Stage 1 practical experience under the RIBA system, must be 5-12 months and requires the signature of a registered architect in HKIA’s Logbook (HKIA, 2020). In some offices, the ratio between year-outs and seniors could be as high as 1:2. In smaller offices, year-outs are often asked to handle the job duties of an architectural assistant while receiving 60% of their salary and with deplorable working conditions (Fig. 5). The issue of “cheap labour” is generally unquestioned by the industry under the notion of educating year-outs for the professional exam. In fact, the year-out experience is not compulsory for professional assessment, yet most students automatically take it as a prerequisite (Refer to Fig. 1). The non-existent requirement also reflects professionalism has dominated the discourses of architectural practice, as unstipulated procedures are construed as unspoken but “necessary” and accepted without question.

Fig. 5

Fig. 5

Glassdoor review by an Architectural Intern in a local firm (Note: AA: Architectural Assistant (a graduate who has not gotten a license), A: Architect (a HKIA-licensed architect) (Glassdoor, 2020).

Conclusion

29For more than half a century, Hong Kong architects have constantly been establishing its identity and power in relation to other stakeholders, including the state (first the colonial and later the SAR government) and other professional institutes whether in competition or cooperation. By tracing the history of the architecture profession in Hong Kong through the history of the professional institute, we show ongoing tensions between various architectural competencies in defining the readiness to be an architect, and invite those part of the institute and field to consider whether change, in the form of more diversity, is necessary. After all, the history of HKIA precisely shows the kind of agency architects have amidst the kind of structure and context they have had to operate within.

30Not only has the architect profession been shaped by architects themselves through the architectural association, but their endeavor can also be grounded in the historical and unique context of Hong Kong. Just as the article was also initially an attempt to decenter the grand monographs of starchitects within architectural discourse through exploring professionalization as a collective effort, there is also a need for more studies into trends in architectural history on topics such as professionalization in places not in the West, each with their contingencies. The kind of professionalism championed by HKIA, while hegemonic, is neither colonial nor nationalistic, and has influenced this city’s built environment and anchored its identity in the form of legislation and standards. Spanning across the colonial era and the handover to China, the efforts and outcomes accompanying professionalization are counter to the pigeonholed characterization of Hong Kong as a “borrowed time, borrowed place,” where ephemeral is the constant.

31Ultimately, there is a need to critically comprehend and unpack the professionalization system i.e. understand how it came to be besides noting its current hegemony. It is only when professionalization is properly discussed and critiqued can the issues of marginalization of other competencies and schisms between studio and reality be resolved and reconciled. Embedded in the complex structure and evolution of professionalization, it is time for us to look beyond solid built forms to understand and define architectural competency in Hong Kong to move forward.

Top of page

Bibliography

AACA. Rep (2019), National Examination Paper, AACA Report to Boards. AACA, August 2019 [Online]. Available at: https://www.aaca.org.au/wp-content/uploads/August-2019-NEP-Summary-Report-.pdf [Accessed: 5 November 2021]

ARCASIA (2010), Brief history [Online]. Available at: http://www.arcasia.org/about-us/brief-history.html [Accessed: 1 November 2021].

NCARB (2021), Are 5.0 pass rates [Online]. Available at: https://www.ncarb.org/pass-the-are/pass-rates [Accessed: 5 November 2021].

Architects Registration Ordinance (1990), Cap. 408.

Austin, Z. (2019), Competency and its many Meanings, “Pharmacy”, vol. 37, n. 7, pp. 1-6.

Board of Architects Singapore, (2022), General Requirements and Information for PPE Candidates [Online]. Available at: https://www.boa.gov.sg/files/General_Info_for_PPE_candidates_Updated_2022.pdf [Accessed: 5 November 2021].

Buildings Ordinance (Amendment) (1974), cap. 123.

Canberra Accord on Architectural Education (2017), (rep.) Canberra Accord on Architectural Education Provisional Review-The Hong Kong Institute of Architects (HKIA)/Architects Registration Board HKSAR (ARB) [Online]. Available at: http://canberraaccord.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/HKIA-2017-Report-for-Signatory-Status_complete.pdf [link not available: 20/11/2023]

Chung, W.-N. (1991), Architects Must Put Professional House in Order, “South China Morning Post”, pp. 20.

Chu Hai College Department of Architecture (2018), Faculty [Online]. Available at: https://arch.chuhai.edu.hk/homepage/faculty/ [Accessed: 5 November 2021].

Cohen, L., Wilkinson, A., Arnold, J., Finn, R. (2005), Remember I’m the Bloody Architect!, “Architects, organizations and discourses of profession. Work, Employment and Society”, vol. 4, n. 19, pp. 775-796.

CUHK School of Architecture (2019, August 1), Faculty. School of Architecture, CUHK [Online]. Available at: http://www.arch.cuhk.edu.hk/faculty-staff/faculty/ [Accessed: 5 November 2021].

Culture - LAAB architects · artists · designers · makers: Hong Kong (2022) [Online]. Available at: https://www.laab.pro/en/team/culture/ [Accessed: 5 October 2022].

Duffy, F., Hutton, L. (1998), Architectural Knowledge: The Idea of a Profession, London - New York, E & FN Spon.

Hong Kong and Far East Builder (1956), Proposed Hong Kong Society of Architects – Meeting of Architects at the American Club, “Hong Kong and Far East Builder”, vol. 1, n. 12, p. 23.

Freidson, E. (1973), Professions and the Occupational Principle, in E. Freidson, The Professions and their Prospects, Beverly Hills, Sage, pp. 19-38.

General info for PPE CANDIDATES UPDATED 2019 - Boa. (n.d.) [Online]. Available at: https://www.boa.gov.sg/files/General_Info_for_PPE_candidates_Updated_2019.pdf [Accessed: 5 November 2021].

Haffner, C. (1989), Ordinances for Architects, “The HKIA Newsletter, September 1989”, HKIA, pp. 10-14.

Haffner, C. (1989), The Architects – Innovative Management of the Managers, “The HKIA Newsletter, October 1989”, HKIA, pp. 12-25.

HKU Faculty of Architecture, (2021), People [Online]. Available at: https://www.arch.hku.hk/people/arch_staff/ [Accessed: 5 November 2021].

Hon, M. (1997, August 13), Architects to Launch Inquiry into President, “South China Morning Post”, p. 6.

Hong Kong Institute of Architects (1972), Yearbook.

Hong Kong Institute of Architects (1973-2000), Annual Report.

Hong Kong Institute of Architects (1974, April 1), Jianzhushi xuehui laixian 建築師學會來 函, “Kung Sheung Daily News 工商日報”.

Hong Kong Institute of Architects / Architects Registration Board (2020), Professional Assessment Handbook.

Hong Kong Society of Architects (1959-1971), Yearbook.

İmamoğlu, B. (2018), Architectural Professionalization in Turkey, Professionalism and Its Posts, in H. Sadri (ed.), Neo-liberalism and the Architecture of the Post Professional Era, Springer, pp. 31-47.

Kostof, S. (1986), The Architect: Chapters in the History of the Profession, New York, Oxford University Press.

Kvan, T., Liu, B., Jia, Y. (2008), The Emergence of a Profession: Development of the Profession of Architecture in China, “Journal of Architectural and Planning Research”, vol. 3, n. 25, pp. 203-220.

Mieg, H.A., Oevermann, H. (2021), Architects in Europe: Models of Professionalisation and Potential Implications for the Planning Profession, disP-The Planning Review, vol. 1, n. 57, pp. 6-17.

Mirza & Nacey Research (2020), RIBA Education Statistics [Online]. Available at: https://www.architecture.com/-/media/DE213D6DC130456CA4643B01890A8D73.pdf?la=en [Accessed: 5 November 2021].

Orr, K. (2015), Institutionalising national standards: a history of the incorporation of the Architects Accreditation Council of Australia (AACA) and the National Competency Standards in Architecture (NCSA) [Online]. Available at: https://www.architecture.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Institutionalising-National-Standards_Kirsten-Orr_2015.pdf [Accessed: 5 November 2021].

Ouyang, L. (1969), Architects Reply to MP, “South China Morning Post”, p. 11.

RIBA (n.d.), Pathways to Qualify as an Architect [Online]. Available at: https://www.architecture.com/education-cpd-and-careers/how-to-become-an-architect [Accessed: 7 October 2022].

PassHKIA (n.d.), FREQUENTLY ASKED [Online]. Available at: https://passhkia.com/hkia-exam-study-materials-past-paper-mc-questions-premium-access/#faq [Accessed: 5 November 2021].

One Bite Design Studio (n.d.), Placemaking [Online]. Available at: https://www.onebitedesign.com/placemaking [Accessed: 7 October 2022].

Public Health and Buildings Ordinance, 1903, Hong Kong.

Saw, S.-H., Kin, C. W. (1975), Population Growth and Redistribution in Hong Kong, 1841-1975, “Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science”, vol. 1, n. 4, pp. 123-131.

Schmitt, R. C. (1963), Implications of Density in Hong Kong, “Journal of the American Institute of Planners”, vol. 3, n. 29, pp. 210-217.

Shadar, H., Orr, Z., Maizel, Y. (2011), Contested Homes: Professionalism, Hegemony, and Architecture in Times of Change, “Space and Culture”, vol. 3, n. 14, pp. 269-290.

South China Morning Post (1966), Architect Calls for Master Plan, “South China Morning Post”, p. 1.

South China Morning Post (1974), Prominent Architect Fined $1,000, “South China Morning Post”, p. 5.

South China Morning Post (1982), Call for Stricter Architect Checks, “South China Morning Post”, p. 8.

Ta Kung Po 大公報 (1960), “You jianzhushi xuehui sheji zhongqu haiwufazhanjihuanijiukuozuo shangyezhongxin tongshi gaishanjiaotong 由建築 師學會設計中區海塢發展計劃擬就闢作商業中心同時改善交通, “Ta Kung Po 大 公報”, p. 4.

The National Architects Association of R.O.C. 中華民國全國建築師公會 (2011), (rep.) Canjia haixialiangan youguan jianzhushi kaoshi yu zhiyezhidu jiaoliuhuodong 參加「海峽兩岸有關建築師考試與執業制度交流活動」出國報告, pp. 1-31.

Waite, R. (2022, 7 June), Ditching Parts 1, 2 and 3 has ‘overwhelming support’ says ARB, “Architects’ Journal” [Online]. Available at: https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/arb-claims-overwhelming-support-for-plans-to-revolutionise-architects-education [Accessed: 7 October 2022].

Wilensky, H. L. (1964), The Professionalization of Everyone?, “American Journal of Sociology”, vol. 2, n. 70, pp. 137-158 [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2775206 [Accessed: 5 November 2021].

Top of page

List of illustrations

Title Fig. 1
Caption Pathway to become an Architect in Hong Kong. This diagram indicates the path to become an architect in Hong Kong, which include a bachelor’s degree, a master’s degree, a minimum-24-month working experience and a 9-paper Professional Assessment. Also, note the relationship between Authorized Person and Registered Architect. A further exam is needed to be taken for one to sign off building drawings submitted to Buildings Department.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ardeth/docannexe/image/3116/img-1.jpg
File image/jpeg, 1.4M
Title Fig. 2
Caption Collage of HKIA editorials (SCMP, 1974; 1975; 1982; 1991; Wah Kiu Yat Po, 1974; 1979; 1981).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ardeth/docannexe/image/3116/img-2.png
File image/png, 4.1M
Title Fig. 3
Caption Central District development planning by HKIA that balanced walkability and vehicular access (Tai Kung Po, 1960:1).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ardeth/docannexe/image/3116/img-3.png
File image/png, 4.5M
Title Fig. 4
Caption Conventional organization of the Building Team. Redrawn from Christopher Haffner’s (HKIA’s former president) speech in 1989 (Haffner, 1989).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ardeth/docannexe/image/3116/img-4.png
File image/png, 331k
Title Fig. 5
Caption Glassdoor review by an Architectural Intern in a local firm (Note: AA: Architectural Assistant (a graduate who has not gotten a license), A: Architect (a HKIA-licensed architect) (Glassdoor, 2020).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ardeth/docannexe/image/3116/img-5.png
File image/png, 157k
Top of page

References

Bibliographical reference

Jen Lam and Sammie Ng, “History of the Hong Kong Institute of Architects”Ardeth, 10-11 | 2022, 207-229.

Electronic reference

Jen Lam and Sammie Ng, “History of the Hong Kong Institute of Architects”Ardeth [Online], 10-11 | 2022, Online since 01 November 2023, connection on 27 March 2025. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/ardeth/3116

Top of page

About the authors

Jen Lam

Independent scholar – jennifercwlam [at] gmail [dot] com

Sammie Ng

Independent scholar – sammiengyanping [at] gmail [dot] com

Top of page

Copyright

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

The text only may be used under licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. All other elements (illustrations, imported files) are “All rights reserved”, unless otherwise stated.

Top of page
Search OpenEdition Search

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search