It was the last Council meeting of Goldschmied’s term of office, during which he had chaired two Honours Committees, and had just announced Jean Nouvel as the Royal Gold Medal winner for 2001. Such moments are normally a cause for joy: Council members politely engaging in prolonged and ceremonial applause, and the President, following tradition, inviting a few to comment. Senior figures would offer some dignified words, thank the Honours Committee and its Secretary for their hard work, and then Council would break for morning coffee. But not that year.

Quick to his feet was a habitually vocal small practice architect who, to save his blushes, shall remain nameless. There is no transcript, but he said something like: ‘Marco, it’s all very well, but yet again this is a big name that’s getting the award. Why can’t an ordinary architect win it? It’s just not fair!’

I think each and every Council member was genuinely shocked at the banality of this remark. There was a prolonged period of stunned silence – you could have heard a pin drop. Then, after a seemingly endless pause, Marco’s eyes narrowed and locked on to the protagonist, and with ultra slow delivery he responded: ‘The reason that an ordinary architect doesn’t win is that the Gold Medal is not intended for ordinary architects.’

There was no laughter in the chamber – the moment was too serious. The challenge, ridiculous as it was, had to be put down, not dismissed. Put down, and put down with authority and firmness. Silence followed until the dignity of the occasion was recovered and other and more sensible contributions could be made.

The Royal Gold Medal – the RIBA recommends, the monarch approve – is awarded on merit, but not always to an individual. Nor is it restricted to architects, despite that exchange described above. I remember Council’s surprise when it was announced that the award had been made to the City of Barcelona. That was the first (and so far only) time that it has been gifted to a municipality. Indeed, the award is usually made to an individual who is a practising architect, responsible for the design and delivery of buildings of distinction. Charles Robert Cockerell was the first recipient; a scholar of Greek architecture, he designed Hanover Chapel in Regent Street with its twin towers and projecting tetrastyle Ionic portico. Completed in 1825, the building was, sadly, demolished in1896. Cockerell was also one of the few Gold Medallists to also serve as an RIBA President, in 1860, 12 years after receiving the medal. Another example was Sir Aston Webb (president from 1902 to 1904); no doubt coincidentally, he served as president immediately prior to the honour being granted!

Charles Cockerell’s Hanover Chapel in Regent Street

Winners do not have to be either RIBA members or British, and as noted non-architects are also eligible. Notable examples of the latter have included Ove Arup (1966), Nikolaus Pevsner (1967), Peter Rice (1992), Frei Otto (2005), and most recently Lesley Lokko (2024). The Medal is usually given to individuals: of the 175 awards made over its 177-year history (none in 1901 or 1924), only seven have been joint appointees rather than individuals. Included among these have been Charles and Ray Eames, Michael and Patti Hopkins, and Archigram, who received the award in the first year of my presidency.

Tony Chapman, who brilliantly managed the Gold Medal and Stirling Prize committees for 15 years, quotes its original mandate in his book Architecture 09 as follows: ‘The Royal Gold Medal for the promotion of architecture, instituted by Queen Victoria in 1848, is conferred annually by the sovereign on some distinguished architect or group of architects for work of high merit, or on some distinguished person or group whose work has promoted either directly or indirectly the advancement of architecture.’

This borrows directly from the RIBA’s royal charter which states its purpose as being ‘the general advancement of Architecture, and for promoting and facilitating the acquirement of the knowledge of the various arts and sciences connected therewith’. Not, you will note, the promotion and advancement of architects, but of Architecture. (In subsequent revisions to the charter this was changed to ‘Civil Architecture’.)

Walking City by Ron Herron/Archigram (detail)

There will always be controversy around any awards programme, but controversy should surely centre on the worthiness of a recipient in the context of the award’s purpose. So, leaving aside the nonsensical suggestion that ‘ordinary architects’ should be eligible for the Royal Gold Medal, some have questioned whether the RIBA’s Honours Committee has strayed off track with some of its recent decisions, arguing that, however worthy the work, some recipients have been recognised for their influence on social agendas rather than architecture. I must declare an interest here, for I coordinated the submission recommending Ken Yeang last year, and contributed to the submission on behalf of Ian Ritchie the year before.

Spire of Dublin by Ian Ritchie

Ritchie’s built work is, at its best, nigh on sublime, and his prodigious output over some five decades as a writer, a teacher, a critic and a designer has had great impact both on and on behalf of our profession. Sadly, the Royal Gold Medal eluded him in 2024, as it eluded Ken Yeang (2025), whose built work has also been stunning, and whose leadership in terms of architecture’s response to the ecological crisis that threatens to overwhelm us all has surely been second to none.

Guthrie Pavilion by Ken Yeang

Awards are important. The WAF awards programme, now in its 17th year, started as a ‘festival and live awards competition dedicated to celebrating and sharing architectural excellence from across the globe’. It now influences new directions in architecture and that is to be applauded. Given this background, I consider it imperative that the Royal Gold Medal should remain true to its original purpose and mandate, restricted to those who contribute significantly to the advancement of architecture.

That must mean the development and improvement of future architectural outcomes. If this suggests that future award committees should lay aside their personal agendas, trim their sails and get back on course, so be it.