The title of “Architect” is protected in most jurisdictions. The argument for this is that we need to ensure public safety. I think we can all agree that building codes should be as strict as possible especially when it comes to skyscrapers, high rises, museums, etc.
Unfortunately professional licensing seems to have evolved from being safety-focused to territory-protective (hence the ire towards Designers like Thomas Heatherwick who run successful architecture practices without being licensed themselves).
Massachusetts now bans terms like Architectural Designer which is what unlicensed designers (composing most of the workforce) were able to use before.
These Architectural Designers are now being told to use "Building Designer” which is telling. Building Designers often work on the exact same project types as many Architectural Designers, and no one is complaining about their training regarding building codes, structural systems, and safety requirements. Why doesn’t this title trigger the same regulatory response?
More recently, Connecticut introduced a bill which states that the use of the terms "architectural design", "architectural services", and "architectural drawings" are prohibited unless used by a licensed architect. The Reddit user who shared the bill to /r/Architects titled the post “Justice. CT is taking the first step in regaining our respected ‘Architect’ titles.” and called for a push to further adoption in other states.
Proponents often frame these restrictions as consumer protection, arguing that unlike other licensed professions, the public often doesn't realize architecture requires licensing and therefore can't make informed decisions about who to hire. If this were truly the concern, the solution would be better disclosure requirements and clearer communication about licensing status, not blanket prohibitions on descriptions. Instead, these broad language restrictions prevent qualified designers from accurately describing their own work, forcing them into vague or misleading terminology that actually makes it harder for consumers to understand what services they're getting. A strong case could be made that this has evolved into regulatory capture.
Switzerland offers a far better alternative. The title of Architect isn't regulated by federal law there, and most cantons simply leave it unprotected. You can call yourself one in places like Zurich without jumping through any licensing hoops. Yet somehow, Swiss buildings aren't exactly collapsing left and right, are they? The difference is that the safety comes from the regulations themselves, not from policing language.
This really drives home the point about what licensing has become versus what it was supposed to be. The Swiss approach suggests you can absolutely maintain building safety without all the territorial protection around specific language. The safety standards do their job just fine.
When regulatory language becomes so broad that it restricts ordinary descriptive terms, it suggests that the system has drifted from its original purpose. Since regulatory bodies want to restrict the use of anything “architectural” (thus forcing innovation in professional terminology), I propose that we popularize a new title that I’ll just call Built Environment Designer.
A Built Environment Designer’s scope encapsulates interiors, buildings, landscapes, urban spaces, and more. They shape spaces to help meet human needs and desires. It’s already an established field spanning Interior Design, Architecture, Landscape Design / Architecture, Urban Design and more.
One using this title can simply put their specialization in parentheses like “Built Environment Designer (Buildings & Streetscapes)”, though it’s almost not even necessary. Services such as “Drafting”, “Concept & Design Development”, etc. are understood within the context.
This deals with the legal issue of not being able to use words like "Architecture" or "Architectural" but still has a certain gravitas that terms such as “Building Designer” lack (as it doesn’t quite cover the full scope of what many Architectural Designers do like pavilions, installations or urban interventions, for example).
If you feel the title is too long or won’t catch on, I’ll just point out that it has the same amount of characters as and fewer syllables than the widely used Multidisciplinary Designer and Interdisciplinary Designer (which also encompass various fields).
It’s a natural fit for regenerative design practitioners whose work encompasses carbon footprint, site ecology, urban heat islands, etc. or even small residential firms doing whole-property design (house + landscape + site planning). Not to mention the fact that bioclimatic design is seeing a resurgence (e.g. evaporative cooling fountains placed in a garden which cool the wind flowing into houses located in hot climates).
When you really think about it, the title "Built Environment Designer" is more descriptive of what many practitioners already do than the traditional titles they're now restricted from using (see Hans Hollein: Everything Is Architecture). One is focused on the design of buildings, whilst the other captures the entire human-made physical environment we inhabit from individual rooms to entire metro areas.
Licensing laws exist to protect public safety and ensure that those performing certain professional services have the legal authority, but that’s exactly why licensed individuals are given a stamp. Protecting a profession means protecting the job function and not the language surrounding it. When reality doesn’t match up with that, it’s time to re-evaluate.