I believe that the public perception of the architect as superfluous can be addressed by legislation in each state that requires an architect to design every building (or additions and alterations to) meant for human habitation. There are so many exemptions in most state regulations that allow virtually all residential uses and many non-residential uses under a certain size to be designed by someone other than an architect. We are seen, then, as an added cost to every project, not for the value we can bring to a project. I think we'd do better to be a "necessary evil" rather than an "added cost".
That being said, the best cleint is still the one that understands what we bring to the table in terms of design expertise, code compliance, and project management. We need to work on getting that message across to those who would otherwise refrain from hiring an architect for their project, or who would hire an architect grudgingly.
In my mind, engineering curricula are better at teaching their students about project management, cost estimating and other issues that directly affect a client's bottom line than are architectural curricula, so much so that clients often let good design play second fiddle to value engineering. Our value proposition is more often about delivering quality over quantity, yet our clients seldom seem to understand the value of good design until it is offered to them for the same cost as less attractively designed buildings.
-------------------------------------------
David Del Vecchio AIA
Architect
David Del Vecchio, Architect, LLC
Cranford NJ
-------------------------------------------