DT: From who? 

SA: From the honorary secretary, Kerr Robertson. He advised all of us he would phone us all from 8:00 o'clock onwards to say whether you’d won or not. So, I assume I got the first call and then the others followed. So, I was delighted to get the call, I was on the way to work and then it was announced. Then lots of texts and emails flooded in and frankly, I didn't particularly celebrate at the time simply because I packed the day full of work to avoid that kind of empty feeling if I’d lost! (laughs)

DT: Yeah. So, you didn't even have a pale ale in the evening? (laughs)

SA: I took the family out and had a glass of champagne

DT: Very nice!  I suppose that brings me to the next question, which is: what should an Institute be for?

SA: I've always said throughout this campaign and I genuinely believe this: the profession can do well and will survive and prosper without an Institute like the RIBA. So, for an institute like the RIBA to be successful in the 21st century it needs to actually become of cultural and professional value to its membership. The RIBA should be capturing debate, challenging how we all think and helping us think better and sharing best practise, whatever that might be, at different scales. That's why I talk about an Institute of ideas because I think the RIBA shouldn’t try and control professional thinking; what it should say is there are a diverse set of attitudes as to how we might solve, for instance the carbon challenge. Let's get that debate out there in a positive way and allow ideas to be promoted, criticised, shared, tested - and therefore it becomes a resource. And also, at the right time, a moment of inspiration, you know, with exhibitions - both look at history with the amazing archive it has, but also best practice in all its forms, by all its members, around the world.

I also think we should invite outsiders in much more, so if you're not an architect but you have an interest in architecture…wider than the honorary fellow thing there's no opportunity to get involved, so let's open it out to those who care about the environment and architecture.

DT: What about the role of the architect over the next five to 10 years? How do you think that will change? What do you hope it will become? Is carbon the biggest one?

SA: Yeah, I think there’s always people in the profession saying it’s dying but it's never been more popular for instance, as a place of academic study, in terms of numbers of students. So, I have every confidence the profession is very different to the one I went into 30 years ago. It will continue to evolve. The big challenge underlying all this is carbon – that's the big one – but there are lots of events along the way that we have to continuously respond to. For instance, how do you design in a post-COVID world? There’s the impact of pandemic on architecture and urban design. There’s: what will come from Grenfell in terms of procurement, liability and responsibility? Some architects can’t get insured at the moment. So, there’s the immediate impact on professional practise that Grenfell will ripple through the profession over the coming years. And then of course we are now into – it may change hopefully - the recession and how will the profession cope with that and particularly the next generation, for whom, having years of very good employment amongst architects we are likely to hit a time of less employment and more unemployment.

But sometimes that terrible misfortune does actually lead to people diversifying and acting in different ways, and that can be part of the stimulus the profession evolving. Some of the architects I know work in film, some are clients, some are in contracting as well as a large number in practice. Some have diversified off somewhere else completely, but architecture is a great training, so I don't think the training to be an architect means you must be an architect. It’s a great training to become a problem solver and a contributor to design in the modern world.

DT: What other ambitions do you have personally or professionally?

SA: (laughs) I have many ambitions professionally and that is to keep trying to make better buildings. Architecture as in the practice in which we are involved remains absolutely central to what I do and how I do it, and we've become an employee ownership trust and we should have a model that we all can carry on practising and evolving that practice and contributes to that practice long into the future, and I see the RIBA as a another chapter on that journey. I was chairman of the AF before and now I will eventually become president of the RIBA; it's just part of that journey, with architecture as the focus of that journey rather than a professional ambition. If I can help the RIBA engage better with architects and architecture and then leave, and it will carry on evolving in myriad new directions then that would have been a successful presidency. Practice will be a focus for me throughout and beyond and after

DT: I've got one more flippant question that's just occurred to me. If you had to choose between your beloved Sheffield Wednesday being promoted to the Premier League, or taking up the reins of the presidency of the RIBA, which one would you choose?

SA: (laughs) That’s exactly the sort of challenge I used to throw up to my old man! (laughs). They are very different worlds. Having been docked 12 points by the ‘League of Greed’ it’s an ever more difficult thing. I have to say, even in my most dark moments of campaigning, I thought I was more likely to win the presidency than we are to get promoted! Having won the presidency, I'm very much hoping we will get promoted!

DT: (laughs) That’s a fantastically political answer, I love it! Thank you for sparing me some time, Simon!

SA: Good to chat with you. Cheers! Bye!