While the question ‘Who or what is an architect?’ could be popular nowadays, the important for a project and for an organization is the act of architecting, the continuous care of all-encompassing properties that give the illusion of simplicity to customers and end-users. That is what is important. That is an essential ingredient for project’s success.
Discussing the establishment of a single individual as the prima-donna decision-maker is foolish, is more about that “taking the form but not the substance” unwise behavior typical of overenthusiastic and blind advocacy of the youth (see: Discussing uncomfortable questions).
Some people believe an architect does not need to get dirty with technical details but also believe they must be in charge of important technical decisions, at the same time. I think doing so is to keep this guy in a position of incompetence.
I think architect is a collective role, not an individual. if we think —on one side— of an architect as a role, not as an individual, whose key aim is to describe an abstract, coherent and conceptually integrated system clearly to all the team and, if we think —on the other side— of a developer as a role, not as an individual, whose key aim is to provide feedback about the technical feasibility for each architectural decision, then both roles could be fulfilled by the same professional or group of professionals (like a team in charge of accurately delivering the right system into the hands of customers and end-users).