We all think that we are simple and honest people. It is from this belief that when we commission a building — especially a house or a small project — we think we can easily find a good architect. But this is a mistake. Architecture has become so complex today that the selection of a suitable consultant has itself become one of the greatest challenges in construction.

We know that good architecture creates good spaces, and a good architect is one who designs with knowledge of all aspects — climate, structure, building services, aesthetics, and the needs of users. In all of this, it is the architect who integrates diverse components and turns them into a coherent whole. A coherent work is one in which the structure, the services, the form, and the space all work together in a unified manner. Such integration requires deep knowledge, extensive experience, and creative ability that cannot be found in any random office.

The problem begins here: when someone decides to build, they face the question of how to choose a consultant. In most cases, the client looks at the fee first. An architect who asks for less gets the job. This is a fundamental error. The consultant’s fee is a negligible portion of the total construction cost, yet the consultant’s decisions determine eighty percent or more of the building’s quality. When we economize on the consultant, we end up paying many times more in construction costs, energy waste, and the poor quality of the resulting spaces.

But what criteria should guide the selection? Experience alone is not sufficient, as some experienced architects merely repeat their earlier designs without growth or innovation. Academic credentials are important but not definitive — many talented designers lack advanced degrees, while some degree-holders produce mediocre work. The portfolio is perhaps the most reliable indicator, but it too can be misleading: photographs of buildings rarely convey the quality of lived experience within them.

One of the persistent problems in our architectural culture is the absence of reliable evaluation systems. In many developed countries, professional bodies and client organizations maintain records of architects’ performance — including their ability to manage budgets, meet deadlines, and satisfy users. In Iran, no such systematic evaluation exists. The Iranian Council of Engineers issues licenses based on qualifications, but this is merely an entry requirement, not a measure of competence or quality. The result is a market where hundreds of offices offer architectural services, and clients have no practical means of distinguishing the excellent from the mediocre.

Another dimension of the problem is the role of personal networks. Much architectural work in Iran is obtained through family connections, social relationships, and personal recommendations. While word-of-mouth can sometimes lead to good matches between client and architect, it also perpetuates a closed system where talented newcomers struggle to gain commissions, and established firms coast on reputation regardless of current performance.

There is also the question of specialization. Architecture has diversified enormously: residential design, commercial complexes, healthcare facilities, educational buildings, and restoration of historical monuments each demand specific expertise. Yet many Iranian architectural offices accept commissions across all these domains, often without the specialized knowledge required. A client building a hospital, for instance, may unwittingly hire an architect whose experience lies primarily in residential towers — with predictable consequences for the quality of the design.

The solution to the problem of choosing a consultant is not simple, but it must begin with raising awareness among clients about the true value of architectural services. Architecture is not a commodity to be procured at the lowest price. It is a professional service whose quality profoundly affects the lives of those who inhabit the resulting buildings. When society understands this — when the culture of building values quality over cost, and expertise over connections — the problem of selecting an architect will become far less daunting. Until then, it remains one of the most significant obstacles to the advancement of architecture in Iran.