Just going to offer an alternative POV here.
I have been in an official "Software Architecture" role in a larger company, had to work with software architects in an large enterprise where I worked at one point, and am now a Senior Developer at a small startup. I have been through very rigid waterfall methodologies, and am now involved in very agile DevOps style delivery at my current job.
Through this gamut of experiences, I feel what the most important thing is not necessarily who does software architecture, but that it is thought about and agreed upon before too much development is done. Sure in an enterprise situation, where they can hire someone to "pass on" instructions, the formal role of a software architect can definitely work. In my current position of fast moving, rapidly iterating and evolving code, we have a lot of conversations about software architecture and figure it out collaboratively, which also works.
If software architecture is not considered, or is not agreed to, then a whole slew of problems can arise, that can be worse than if you simply make a wrong choice in the architecture. The most severe I have seen are things like: no scalabilty (as opposed to limited scalability from a wrong decision), unmaintainable code (resulting in massive rewrites), and various culture problems.
So I guess, depending upon why you are asking the question, maybe the answer is "make sure software architecture is considered, and pick a method of making sure that happens that works for your and your team".
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
We strive for transparency and don't collect excess data.