Should application architects write code?
Even if your argument against coding is valid, I think it's important for the dev team to respect you and your design decisions. If you "suffer the consequences" of your architecture decisions right along with them, then they're much less likely to question them.
All the time, I see architects who are out of touch with the coding side, and whose dev teams know it. They don't get much respect.
Ab-so-frickin-lutely
There's nothing worse than an Architect who has lost touch with reality.
It's part of the job to keep your feet on the ground and your head in the clouds.
Just to give my two cents (and my vision of "architects")
I believe there are several types of architect, each in their own domain:
business and functional architects: they are concern with business operations and functions workflow, and they actually should not ever code, because they have to be able to abstract themselves from any kind of implementation, and they must produce functional specifications which leave the technical solution open.
applicative architects: they divide a functional domain (like "profit and losses analysis") into applications (like "portfolio processor", "launcher", "dispatcher", "gui"). They do not need to code, but they should be former coder in order to have a clear idea of technical challenges that their architectures must address. Their primary skill is not coding though, but listening to technical colleagues in order to choose the right solution. They will then produce technical implementation which must be implemented (coded).
technical architects: they are in charge of choosing and/or implementing technical frameworks (those which are generic for any functional project, like KPI, logging, exception management), and they should absolutely code (and code well), since their components will be used by all the other functional teams.
development architects (hey, that's me ;) ): in charge of development tools and processes, and technological surveys, they should code and love coding as well.
So I believe there is not just one answer: it depends on your architectural field and expertise: when it comes to 'application architects', I believe the three latter categories can have different coding experience...
I think the role of architecture is changing. I see less and less ivory tower architects that design a whole system for the lowly programmers to implement in a waterfall process.
When doing iterative projects communication between architects and programmers gets more important. The architect is part of a team and should be able to handle changing requirements and new ideas together with the programmers. In situations like this the job of an architect and a programmer are more closely related. I've seen teams where the dev-leads took on the role of architects deliver well thought out architectures for really complicated solutions.
edit In reply to comment
I think in the distinction between application, solution and enterprise architect is a bit artificial and doesn't really fit in many cases. Roles like security architect, data architect etc. give a far clearer disinction between responsibilities. You can look here for more details http://stevendwright.home.comcast.net/~stevendwright/ArchRoles.htm
By the way, from reading your question again I noticed that many of the arguments against coding architects seem to indicate a strong management/leadership role for the architect. I think it's a good idea to separate the management and architecture roles. It's better to have your technical people divide their time between coding and architecture than between management and architecture.
Yes. Software architects who haven't written code for years lose touch with the realities of building a product. They start producing grand designs with ever-higher levels of abstraction, which seem to keep slipping their ship dates.