‘We don’t have an attraction problem’: Mark Farmer challenges built environment narrative  

Posted on: 23 April, 2026

By Linda Serck 

Mark Farmer is not one for nominative determinism, where your name subconsciously decides your career path.

Far removed from agriculture, he has spent 35 years in the construction industry, now leading a successful consultancy and authoring government-commissioned reports that are as subtle as a tonne of bricks, to use a clichéd yet relevant pun for the built environment. ‘Modernise or Die’ is certainly a headline-grabbing report title and sets the tone for the forthright voice he has become known for. 

It was no different at the Built Environment Futures Assembly (BEFA) INSPIRE event in London.Mark did not mince his words in his opening address. Referencing the Government’s target, he said, “1.5 million homes, that isn’t going to happen – everyone knows that,” despite the presence of speakers from government departments in the room. 

With the day focused on future-facing workforce planning, he also made a statement that directly challenged the prevailing narrative of a recruitment crisis in the built environment sector. 

“We don’t have an attraction problem,” he flatly told the room of more than 100 attendees. 

This declaration flies in the face of the numerous reports from institutions such as Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB), Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) and Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) that all warn of a critical talent crisis. 

Reasons often cited are: a shrinking workforce, high vacancy levels, and an ageing demographic. As of early 2026, over 140,000 construction roles are sitting unfilled in the UK, with warnings from the University of the Built Environment itself indicating a need for nearly 1 million additional workers by 2032 to meet demand. These statistics come from a report called ‘Construction and Building Trades: The Skills Horizon’ published by the Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research. The introduction states in no uncertain terms: “there’s a crisis”.

Absorption not attraction is the problem 

 So why did Mark make this counter statement? 

“It might be viewed as being a bit controversial because it is,” he said, speaking afterwards. “There’s a sort of an accepted doctrine that you can’t recruit enough young kids to come into the industry. The industry has been perceived as not being very attractive. A lot of the jobs we offer might not be seen as good jobs – they’re quite physical, they’re out in the mud and the rain and the wind.  

“The harsh reality, though, is that we have far more people who look to get into the industry doing those very jobs than actually end up successfully gaining employment. We therefore, at least in the current economic climate, have an absorption problem not an attraction problem.” 

The ‘threat’ of AI 

Mark also argues that something else is now happening that’s likely to increase the flow of new talent into what have been perceived as hardest-to-fill roles. 

“I actually think there’s something going on out there which means that that [perception] issue is going to diminish, partly down to the fact that young kids, the next generation, are increasingly concerned about what the future of work looks like. The idea of working in an office, having a white collar job, sitting behind a computer producing a spreadsheet, it’s clearly under threat from something like AI.” 

Mentioning the added issue of student debt and drawing on recent industry survey data on changing career path attitudes, he points to an emerging rethink amongst Generation Z about long-term career security. 

“What some of the evidence suggests is that the next generation are increasingly thinking, ‘I need to get a trade or learn practical skills. I need to be in part of the workforce where it’s not going to get replaced by AI’.” 

‘Honest conversation needed about future trends’ 

That shift, he argues, could begin to reshape interest in construction roles that have historically struggled to attract new entrants.  

“It might conversely reduce the pipeline of talent into some built environment professional services, where the impact of AI may in itself impact future workforce needs. We need an honest conversation about those future trends.  

“Societal and generational changes responding to the advent of AI creates opportunity around some construction jobs that we’ve historically really struggled to get kids interested in.  

“I think we’re going to see a sort of tipping point or inversion, where a lot of kids are going to be more interested in vocational rather than academic pathways into work and want those solid, long-term sustainable jobs. The issue will remain whether the industry consistently has the workload to absorb them.” 

‘Bob the builder’ caricature 

When asked whether a national awareness campaign like with the Armed Forces could help address what appears to be an identity issue for the sector, Mark shifts the focus away from scale and towards the need for clarity. 

“It’s quite clear that defining the built environment is important,” he said. “I would use the term ‘built environment’ rather than construction, because we are addressing an issue which is beyond just the construction site workforce.” 

He emphasises that the sector’s breadth is not well understood, particularly among younger audiences. 

 “We’re looking at everyone that’s involved in creating built assets. Architects, engineers, planners, surveyors, building managers. It’s a much broader catchment and that’s not well presented to the public. Young kids will identify with construction first and foremost. They might even have a caricature of Bob the Builder in their head, which is a problem because it reinforces the stereotype.” 

A national campaign is not the answer 

While communication channels matter, he argues that the impact of high-profile national campaigns can be overestimated. 

“I would caution the idea of having a national campaign like the armed services have pursued, which is often quoted as the benchmark in terms of what the army, the Air Force and the Navy have done. 

“In reality they’re struggling as much as many industries to get young people to join up, so we shouldn’t assume it’s a panacea or that the answer is simply a national TV campaign or advertising posters on the Tube or at national railway stations. 

“It’s more about what the message is. We definitely need to do that better. We need to get our communication strategy right and the media channels right, but I’d be more interested in the content of what we’re saying.” 

 That message, he suggests, is already compelling if articulated properly. 

 ”There’s a really interesting, unique proposition that our industry has, which is that we create things. Everything you see around us is the built environment. We live in it, we work in it, we experience our leisure time in it.” 

‘We are a good-paying industry’ 

 He believes this sense of tangible impact is something that should be foregrounded more clearly. 

“Everything the economy relies on is founded on the built environment,” he said. “There’s a real sense of self-esteem and reward from being involved in that, and we need to major on that message more.

He added: “Young people want to make a difference, but they also want to be well rewarded. We are a good-paying industry, particularly when times are good. We also need to make sure, alongside Government, that our industry can offer not just good wages but longer-term job security and it becomes less boom and bust.” 

Recognition over reinvention 

In the end, he argues, the sector’s challenge is less about reinvention and more about recognition. 

“We need to combine what young people are looking for: something worthwhile, something that makes a difference, and something that rewards them. 

“We tick all those boxes.”

Feeling inspired?  

Explore the University of the Built Environment courses here

Find out more about Apprenticeship Degree Programmes with the University here