Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

The Genoa disaster underlines the responsibility architects hold

Paul Finch
  • 4 Comments

Why would you put contractors in charge of anything except construction? asks Paul Finch

The bridge disaster in Genoa is a version of the Grenfell Tower nightmare. Something-must-be-done political hand-wringing cuts little ice with grieving relatives. As ever, groups with an axe to grind focus on aspects of the disaster to pursue their own narrow agendas. The media tries to find some sort of balance (at best) and joins in absurd scapegoating at worst.

A common seam running through these events is responsibility, which in legal terms translates into liability. Who did what, when and how? Who checked?

Genoa photo crop courtesy newcivilengineer

Genoa photo crop courtesy newcivilengineer

Source: Photograph courtesy of NCE

Genoa bridge collapse

As we have seen at Genoa, none of this is simple, and to understand what has happened requires the attitude of mind represented by research group Forensic Architecture. Its belief in the efficacy of scientific analysis is a refreshing reminder that Enlightenment values are particularly relevant in an era where facts and truth are under bombardment, from liars and fantasists who seriously believe that words mean what they say they mean – the ultimate vanity of the self-obsessed.

It will be possible to check whether the bridge design and the engineering calculations conformed with regulatory standards of the time, and who signed off both the designs and the approvals. It will be possible to take concrete samples and ascertain whether the material mixes were of the appropriate strength. It will be possible to inspect documents recording periodic surveys, including those by the maintenance company, to determine whether planned repairs to the structure were wrongly delayed for any reason.

What might be more difficult will be to determine the extent to which increases in traffic, and in particular the increased loads imposed by mega-lorries, were properly recorded or planned for.

However, this will be no excuse for the failure to properly maintain and repair, since unanticipated increases by definition can be measured at some stage – if only to demonstrate they were unanticipated. The history of bridge design is partly a history of strengthening and, if necessary, replacement, and has been part of structures education for two centuries.

Real life is of course another matter. The relentless pursuit of ‘risk transfer’ throughout the construction sector is making life more dangerous because responsibility devolved almost inevitably dilutes liability.

An example of this – tiny by comparison with Genoa but still relevant – was the tragic and unnecessary death of a cyclist who hit a pothole in Warwickshire (it was filled with water and looked like a puddle). The pothole had twice been identified by the county council as dangerous. Balfour Beatty had a contract to carry out repairs, which it subcontracted to another company, which in turn subcontracted it to a local company, along with GPS data on exactly where the hole was.

Construction companies have a grim track record of taking ‘responsibility’ for things, then subcontracting the actual work

For reasons that have yet to be explained, the individual sent to do the work failed to find the right hole, and instead filled in one three miles away and then changed the information on the completion form to suggest that the required work had been carried out. This is what I mean by liability diluted. It appears that nobody actually checked that the hole had been filled. Not surprisingly, the council is likely to be sued, doubtless triggering a flow of litigation that will chiefly benefit lawyers.

Construction companies have a grim track record of taking ‘responsibility’ for things, then subcontracting the actual work and holding their hands up in horror when things go wrong. It is never their fault.

You might take the example of Tarmac (as was), providing prisons but subcontracting all security work to Group 4 in the early years of PFI. Why would you put contractors in charge of anything except construction? A point never understood by the Treasury in its lust, a least at the time, to finance major projects off the balance sheet.

Responsibility and liability should be on a very short chain. And, if architects want to have a sustainable future, they would be well advised to embrace both, rather than transfer them to others, and indeed to take back certain diminishing areas like project management and cost control. It is time to stand up and be counted.

Architects have a greater responsibility than other parts of the construction team, because of their unwritten contract with future users of the buildings they create. This involves social responsibility, not simply competent functional design; it does not impose formal liabilities – because it is more important than that. When you have responsibility without power, you are in the world of morals and ethics. That is what it means to be a professional.

  • 4 Comments

Readers' comments (4)

  • John Kellett

    Excellent and balanced article. "Architects have a greater responsibility than other parts of the construction team, because of their unwritten contract with future users of the buildings they create." Perhaps the unwritten contract should be an actual one? When will the illogically of employing a contractor to design buildings stop? Buildings need to be designed to suit the needs of their current and future owners BEFORE any contractor gets involved, as so many projects have now proved over the past 30 years.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Quite frankly, the last paragraph is the most absurd piece of old cobblers I have yet read in this journal.
    Let's review the Dartington Primary School fiasco. There is collective blame/guilt that should have reflected upon the entire profession, given that the plans were published in most of the architectural magazines before a spade was lifted.
    As I understand it, no sanctions or any disciplinary proceedings were taken against the designers of the shockingly atrocious project. The RIBA kept quiet; this journal merely reported on the court decision without any great criticism of those involved and who are still allowed to peddle their incompetency to a gullible public.
    Until stricter standards of conduct, education and performance are demanded by the RIBA this nonsense will continue.
    Too bad Phillip Allsop was not elected to the Presidency of the RIBA, he may have brought with him some American standards of competency, responsibility and discipline.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Ian Cadell. I think if that were the method of dealing with any design defects then there would be very few architects on any register. I doubt that there are many established practices that have never had a claim against them although the case you mention was quite catastrophic. It is also the reason we all are required to carry Professional Indemnity Insurance. I am intrigued about the standpoint from which you make your comment. You don't appear to be an architect and as such not a member of the RIBA.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • For Ian Cadell: I can't recollect having seen any working details of Dartington Primary published in the press, but maybe they were.
    I'd add the ARB to the list of those who seem to have been too busy to pick up on the implications for the integrity of the architectural profession.
    But if the lives so tragically lost in Genoa serve to concentrate minds across the board, and not just in Italy, then those people won't have been killed for nothing.

    For Paul Finch: talking of potholes, I've just been notified by Highways England that surface damage on a slip road in South Devon, just where it joins a fast and very busy trunk road - damage visible on Google Earth, dating from the severe weather last February - is to be repaired this week.
    This may (or may not) be due to recent representations to the local MP, who also happens to be a big cheese in HM Treasury, the people who've been savaging the budgets for - inter alia - trunk road maintenance expenditure ever since 2008.
    It may (or may not) be due to pointing out that the road damage could easily trigger a major accident, with fatalities - and that this wasn't Italy.
    The gross neglect (sorry, deferred maintenance) may, of course, be due to some obscure government algorithm involving the probability of public scandal due to failure to invest, with the risks weighted according to the relative redundancy of ministers, MPs, civil servants, contractors and the lives of the travelling public.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.