There is absolutely no sign in this annoucement (woolly as it is) to indicate any preference for refurb-first as opposed to further demolitions or encroachment on agricultural land.
Lambeth Planning is not reknowned for paying much regard to listed protection, certainly not where its own estate is concerned. I cite my and residents painful experiences with Macintosh Court in Streatham, still unresolved.
If all persons in positions of high office resigned over an extra marital affair, that would certainly clear the decks and rid us of PM who is rapidly loosing what ever confidence the public once had in him. But if that is the top and bottom of the matter it looks as though the RIBA grossly over reacted.
Comment on: ‘First we storm the building, then we take back the asylum’: Allford slams ‘irrelevant’ RIBA
At the RIBA SGM 2nd Oct 2019, held to approve the changes to the byelaws which clear the way for a corporate take-over of our Institute, transforming it from a democratic, membership organisation, I spoke to oppose thistranformation, as did Tzena James. We argued that this would inevitably undermine democratic control and open the Institute to corporate takeover and in particular that the position of chair of the Board was not reserved for an architect, a situation unimaginable for any other UK professional organisation. We were told that as the changes had already been approved by Council (which had meekly voted for its own disempowerment) and that the SGM was effectively a rubber stamp.
A vote was taken and from memory there were only 4 votes against.
However, rumour has it that coaches were provided for the architect staff-members from Ben Derbyshire’s and John Assael’s offices to pack the meeting, which was held during normal working hours and would therefore be most inconvenient for the average RIBA member. however committed.
Is it any surprise that over 80% of architects question the relevance of the Institute to their professional lives? I fully support the protest that Simon Alford has launched.
Charles Thomson’s flaunts his contempt for the local authority housing of the 1960s. Could it be that this attitude played into Studio 54’s decision to allocate the massive job of the over-clad of the Grenfell Tower to an unqualified staff member who admitted in the dock that he had neither familiarised himself with the relevant sections of the building regs, nor with the circumstances leading to previous fire disasters, the most recent having been in 2013, Lakanal house in Southwark, which had clear parallels with Grenfell?
His contempt is misplaced as witnessed by the satisfaction expressed by many of the survivors with the flats they occupied, despite K & C TRA’s dismissal of innumerable complaints of poor maintenance. For those of us still around who worked in the public sector in the ‘60s and strove to negotiate the severe, but fair constraints of the housing cost yardstick and Parker Morris space standards to produce humane environments, I can testify to the joy of receiving unsolicited messages of thanks from grateful occupants, enjoying the products of those labours.
Thomson makes very free with his insults of Emma Dent-Coad who is both a qualified architect, a K & C councillor and MP until the last election. He is on weak ground in accusing her of banality in arguing against value engineering, given that Studio 54 signed themselves into an agreement placing them in the position of lead consultant and that the suggestion for the change from zinc cladding to ‘something cheaper’ emanated from them. A little more contrition for lack of due diligence on his part would seem appropriate.
There are estimated to be 450 residential blocks in the country presenting exactly the same potential for an inferno and the incineration of occupants. In Leeds the fire brigade is pressing for the evacuation of 13 such blocks, as was done in Camden in the case of the 5 on the Chalcots Estate.
To the extent that architects were involved in any of these over-clads, he is right that any of them might find themselves in the dock. He is also right to point his finger at the ultimate responsibility of governments for their failure to act on Inspector’s reports from no less that 5 public enquires over a period of 26years, into fire disasters resulting from the use of flammable cladding. The findings from all 5 Inquires recommended the strengthening and clarification of building regs on fire-prevention and means of escape.
Therefore I agree with the survivors, that the Inquiry is examining the questions least central to the causes first; naturally the government wants to find scapegoats and distract attention from its irresponsible inaction.
Kate Macintosh retired architect