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

Report this comment to a moderator

Please fill in the form below if you think a comment is unsuitable. Your comments will be sent to our moderator for review.
By submitting your information you agree to our Privacy & Cookie Policy.

Report comment to moderator

Required fields.


Analysis: Grenfell tragedy highlights architects' marginalisation


It is a huge pity we have so many half truths here, starting with Alan Dunlop suggesting architects "were working for both the contractor and the client when the building was being built". The architect works for the "client" and has a duty during the contract to act as "arbiter" between client and contractor - this is not the same as being employed by both. The industry has undoubtedly lost its way, now as Richard Saxon suggests relying on insurance to prop up competence. The US scenario outlined in Andrew Gibb's "go figure" comment wrongly claims that only architects can apply for building permits, but owners and licensed contractors can apply too and the problems are identical. Too much emphasis on value for money, not enough money available for independent checks. In California we have a procedure called "deputy inspection" where a qualified individual keeps a daily log and certifies compliance with approved documents. In the UK we have a golden opportunity to have properly trained site architects and Clerks of Works performing such a role, also covering design intent and shop drawings. This will ensure that expensive corrections and variations do not delay work in progress on site and deliver safe assets according to certified intent.

Posted date

5 August, 2017

Posted time

5:15 pm


Job of the week

AJ Jobs