A chara, – Michael Casey’s article (“Architects must answer for misery of bad building,” Opinion, November 8th) contained in its body a surprisingly ill-informed attack on the architectural community. It is for readers to judge the fairness of a broadside against a profession where unemployment in excess of 50 per cent is a daily reality, and emigration is the only option for young graduates. That is a matter of opinion. However, Mr Casey makes a number of inaccurate assertions, and that is not.
Space prevents me from deconstructing these in detail, but to summarise: he states SF-88 is the “standard contract,” which it is not; he states that the architect’s duties in this contract to the employer are vague, apparently unaware that the client and architect have a separate agreement in which this is clearly set out; he attributes powers to the architect which are non-existent; he fails to understand that the architect’s duty of inspecting the property carries with it a serious responsibility for the building, which has been seen to be the case many times in court.
Mr Casey also states that architects were earning fees “up to 30 per cent of the total cost of works,” which is entirely unsubstantiated, and unheard-of in my experience; in my 10 years of practice I know of no architect who has charged one-third this amount.
However, the article also fails to mention the role of the developer, which is ludicrous. The building failures of the past 10 years come from the exclusion of architects, not from collusion with them. The failures are serious. Badly-researched articles do not help to rectify them.
Mr Casey concludes by speaking about the need for “supervision.” This would require a client for a domestic job to pay an architect to be on-site, full-time, for six months; this is not a good way of bringing down costs as he so wishes.
Mr Casey concludes by hoping that the IMF-led Troika will advise on redrawing the construction contracts; In light of his own IMF connections, and his complete failure to understand the industry (or even, it seems, talk to a single architect), this is not an idea that fills me with confidence. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – I am astonished and disgusted at the departure from the usual journalistic standards of The Irish Timesin the article by Michael Casey (Opinion, November 8th). At the very least; an opportunity should be afforded a registered practitioner to publish an article on the matter which is based in fact.
The language is in part derogatory and the author’s use of phraseology such as: “if it happens that that the architect and the builder have a long and cosy association then the client could be on a hiding to nothing” is an insult to the profession and contracting firms. The quality of architecture in Ireland was celebrated recently in the annual Open House events; a cursory glance at this website yields numerous fine examples of various building types by architects in the private sector.
The reference to fee charges of 30 per cent or anything approaching it even during the “boom years” is pure fantasy.
The comment “my request to the RIAI to provide a copy of this contract fell on deaf ears” sums up the author’s attitude. The contract you refer to is not the one most commonly used. Also, it costs very little, and can be easily purchased from RIAI, the Law Society, or online. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – I write regarding Michael Casey’s article (Opinion, November 8th).
He appears to be very critical of architects, but there are a lot of other issues to be taken into account. On large projects, an architect plays a very minor role – squeezed by costs, time, planning permission as to what he/she might be able to do.
A large building has a “design team”: architects, quantity surveyors, engineers, project managers. If the developer is also the contractor, the amount of control by the design team is lessened.
There is a difference between “architecture” and development: architecture is about a vision, an improvement on what went before.
Unfortunately, development has become a maximisation – of site, building and profit. One of the reasons for this is the lack of building controls – the entire building industry needs this.
For architects to sign a certificate on a building that they haven’t supervised, they have to have exclusions – how can anyone sign off on a building that they haven’t been allowed to monitor? Instead of blaming architects for signing forms full of exclusions, perhaps people should look beyond, at the reasons why this practice has evolved. Over the centuries, there have been good builders and bad; good architects and bad; checks and balances need to be re-established in order to develop a good building stock.
Finally, it might be worth noting that many of our finer buildings are as a result of competitions which then become architect-led projects.
In addition, more than 80 per cent of our housing is not designed by architects.
Irish architects have a good reputation internationally as a creative and dedicated group – why are they getting this type of response at home? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – When the former chief economist with the Central Bank and board member of the International Monetary Fund, Michael Casey (Opinion, November 8th) suggests that ducking responsibility has reached epidemic proportions one would have thought he was referring to the banking industry, rather than the architects’ role in the construction industry, their level of fees, and contract law about which he clearly knows little. – Yours, etc,