Brief Cases: what if the ‘architect’ you hired wasn’t really an architect?

Great minds think alike Patrick.

I started typing before you posted and 100% agree with you.

A “voice from the sharp end” Phil , your right some people put them on pedestal,s but like you I dont .

One small town I lived in was devastated by the war it took about 40 years till they “re-designed ” it
and OMG what a mess they made of it , no social thinking whatsoever from a warm feeling of “I belong ” to cold -hard – boxes built to a low standard with an isolated shopping area handy for the local vandals/thieves to operate in , it is now hard to let out with shops closing constantly .
Walk round the town and its got a feeling of isolation , in the end they admitted “they got it wrong ” and are now re-re-designing it .

I never thought Prince Charles deserved to be criticised for his view on modern architecture , just speaking the truth.

The “Bruce ” in this aspect as city planner and architect doesn’t deserve his surname.

Yes I read “The Glasgow Story ” and can only think this “educated ” gentleman ” must have been one of the original inhalers of “funny fags ” .
His idea was monstrous to say the least and would have turned Glasgow into an industrial estate .
Obviously the “City Fathers ” took in some of his views creating Drumchapel-Easterhouse and other “fine ” examples of not how to treat people .
They did in the end “see the light ” by not pulling down all the tenements otherwise Partick/etc wouldn’t exist .

Meanwhile the “intelligentsia ” lived in leafy places like Bearsden/ Milngavie and several on the south-side.

I think you both might be doing Bruce a disservice. He was the city engineer, but his plan for Glasgow’s regeneration might have worked well had it been implemented. Instead, and as so often happens with local councils, all the unpaid and unqualified councillors through they knew better and proceeded to pick and choose which bits they wanted to implement.

It’s fashionable to blame the architect for disasters, and I’m not saying they don’t make mistakes. But I’ve worked with a lot of architects, including some of the best in the world, and the good ones not only know their subject extremely well, but can create some stunning work.

Architects have to endure numerous conflicting demands; the client has one set, the building regulations and associated enforcement officials another and the construction companies doing the work another, to name but three. And the architect has to be up to date on all the new developments for materials and construction techniques – often those with which the construction companies are not.

But most smaller jobs neither need nor could use an architect, for the reasons John explains. A reputable builder will often suffice.

“Might have worked ” –what world are you living in ?- would you like the City of London to be turned into an industrial estate -flattening all those prestige London museums/ art galleries etc .

Moving all the inhabitants 10 or more miles outside the city , did you really read his views ?
Glasgow City Council-Reference-930.2001.15- copyrighted –
Quote-
Bruce proposed to demolish almost everything in the city centre and rebuild from new, removing, for example, the School of Art, the City Chambers, Central Station and all the other period buildings which add so much character to the city today. Slum tenements were to be replaced by commercial developments and the inhabitants removed to high-density housing schemes on the outskirts (but within the boundaries) of the city.

Bruce’s proposals were ultimately rejected and less radical solutions sought.

Reference: 930.2001.15

Reproduced with the permission of Glasgow City Council, Glasgow Museums

Do you think I mentioned those places that were part of this mans thinking without due thought ? Ask Glaswegians whether they “love ” living in Drumchapel -Easterhouse etc and the continual crime rate unrest etc due to lack of amenities .
Drumchapel is on the border with Clydebank its inhabitants do a lot of shopping in Clydebank which is over 7 miles from Glasgow city centre and even in Clydebank they got it wrong in the Planning dept. and have now started -regeneration MK2 .

duncan lucas says: Today 09:51

“Might have worked ” –what world are you living in ?

I don’t think there’s any need for rudeness, Duncan. Neither of us know for sure what the outcome might have been, which is why I used the modal.

But in any case, I see mutterings all the time about ‘buildings of fine architectural merit’ when they’re nothing of the sort. We tend to revere old buildings and I’ve never really understood why.

Not that far from where we live is a town which is full of those who go on all the time about the preservation of the ‘fine Victorian buildings’, as though building in the Victorian era was somehow unique and wonderful, instead of – as was often the reality – being thrown up quickly in the prevailing style.

But then – I was brought up in a Victorian house, so I know from bitter experience just how bad some of them were.

Some of the best UK architectural practices would not work with municipal authorities on comprehensive redevelopment schemes because they were the worst possible client. I think the clients have to take responsibility for a lot of the town planning disasters that occurred from the 1960’s through to the late 1980’s. Luckily we don’t have many of those nowadays and most of the horrors are commercially inspired.

It was not all bad, however. Some of the schemes brought depressed areas back to life, there was a lot of good housing provision in low-rise high-density developments that both looked good and worked well for the residents, and some of the new towns and town centre renewal schemes are architecturally quite impressive.

Anyway, back to the domestic situation. For any work that involves structural alterations or extensions from the existing footprint, or changes to the design of the front elevation, it will be necessary to have professional drawings for submission to the building control office. This work is usually outside the scope of a general builder but, as I mentioned before, they might be able to recommend a surveyor or architectural consultant who can produce the drawings and see them through to approval but is also competent to project-manage and supervise the work and the costs. Even if the person is not an RIBA-registered architect that does not mean they are not competent in the required disciplines but, obviously, they should not misrepresent their professional status. A chartered surveyor or engineer might be just as good for the work involved and might even have skills not possessed by an architect.

I commend Vynor’s approach. Going down the “architect first” route, and taking the trouble to select a practice that has the right blend of competencies within a team, should deliver a superior project and generally at no additional expense overall. Using a single professional on a complex scheme does have drawbacks since a team approach is a safeguard against errors and if there are significant elements of design in the project a team might produce more innovative or more suitable ideas rather than just a reworking of something they have done previously.

Looking at other work in the locality and seeing who did the building work and provided the professional services is a good starting point and if possible speaking to the property owners to see what their experience was during the construction phase.

One thing I have noticed is that good building firms [such as those directly employing a handful of people and sub-contracting the specialist work to other reputable firms] are jealous of their professional reputation. They tend to have lengthy waiting lists, have well-organised sites with clean and tidy working practices, put a board up with their name and address on it, have decent vehicles in their own livery, don’t need to bother with newspaper adverts or belonging to multi-trader websites, and are probably selective as to who they work for. They rely on personal recommendations and recognise that, if they upset a client, word is likely to spread among the neighbours and work in that area will dry up. In some things, having confidence that you are getting a good job done well is worth more than chiselling a few hundred pounds off the cost. And if you’re spending a six-figure sum on the work, getting the protection of a good professional to manage it for you is well worth it.

Rudeness Ian ? it hasn’t stopped you in the past .

Have you no conception of Phil,s point being thrust onto what was originally a country area with zero facilities no thought taken for the poor people and yes it was all poor people having to fork out bus fares because they worked in factories nearer Glasgow , having little choice in the limited shopping where prices were higher because of near monopolist conditions.
The loss of communal spirit -young people with nothing to entertain them so end up in gangs fighting other gangs in neighboring Clydebank ,the air might have been a touch fresher but that was all .

“The Vision ” by the city Fathers taken from Bruce,s “vision ” didn’t pan out who guess what ? lived in better conditions eleswhere.

Duncan – please forget what friction there might be between you and Ian and think of the many other visitors to this website. I was somewhat surprised by your retort to his perfectly mild and reasonable comment. I don’t think there is any excuse for antagonistic language even if you feel sorely provoked. It takes everyone of us to be careful if we are to have a politer Conversation.

While I listen to you John I have already said – why cant I reply to derogatory comments made about me ?
If I don’t reply the public will think –“he is right ” and think all the worse of me .
And if I am told-don’t reply or you will be sanctioned that is denying my legal right of reply on a public website.
It cuts both ways or not at all that is the way the Law in this country operates -justice – blindfolded not lifting the blindfold and winking to one side or another.

This country used to be looked up to because of its laws — what has changed?

duncan lucas says: Today 10:41

Have you no conception of Phil,s point being thrust onto what was originally a country area with zero facilities no thought taken for the poor people and yes it was all poor people having to fork out bus fares because they worked in factories nearer Glasgow , having little choice in the limited shopping where prices were higher because of near monopolist conditions.

I believe some of the post-war planning strategies were – in hindsight – errors, but some of those strategies were designed to give people who were living in sub-standard accommodation a fresh start in a more rural area with decent housing.

Community dislocation was the biggest consequence, but the councils at that time faced an almost impossible task; the eradication of sub-standard housing stock and creating improved environments for the populace couldn’t easily be done quickly if you couldn’t move large numbers of families.

Of course mistakes were made; on these wholescale redevelopments they would be inevitable, but a lot of issues were created through the antagonism of those being moved. And while you can argue that individual families should be grateful for what they’re given, what they lost was of greater importance – at least in their minds.

One of the biggest problems, incidentally, was the lack of any say in who could move into blocks of flats. Most people are decent, law-abiding and thoughtful, willing to help others out. But during the relocation strategies, no allowance was made for the odd, seriously dysfunctional family. Thus a single family could make an entire estate almost intolerable for the majority. It wasn’t until the Housing Associations became a reality that people were given the power to deal with problem families.

I have always thought that the museums in South Kensington were stunning examples of Victorian architecture and, currently adapted, seem to make good use of the space within. The Albert Hall, close by also appears to have got the acoustic right and it, too, has presence. The interstices below the stage, are fascinating, very Victorian and impractical, despite the cobbling that has gone on over the years. The circular nature of the building still doesn’t stop one getting lost. My Aunt’s Victorian house was also impressive with its tiled hallway, high ceilings, spacious rooms -kitchen excepted – and garden with space to wander. The Victorian W.C. in the back yard was a fascination for a youngster. I suppose if one looked to heat the place, now, with radiators, this might take some energy and the sash windows were probably draughty, but this was much more to do with the materials available than shoddy architecture. Again, like now, there were houses built for those who had money and those that provided basic accommodation that was less than desirable, with shared water and two small rooms for everything. That much of this housing stock is still here, says something for the quality of building and materials used. Buying an older house is not necessarily a bad investment. If it is still here, it is probably not going to fall down any time soon.

I just thought I would mention, Duncan, that there is no “legal right of reply on a public website”. We are here at the publisher’s discretion and Which?, as the publisher, has laid down some community guidelines for the good conduct and etiquette of the Conversation site. The editor [acting through moderators and the editorial team] has the ultimate discretion to permit or disallow anyone’s submission.

I understand your grievance at being criticised for constantly trying to contest other people’s comments on your contributions, but I think you should sometimes step back, count to ten, and move on. If visitors see this to be an argumentative site with continuous bitching and bickering over words and meanings there will be no Conversations since they will go away and stay away.

In terms of your present dispute, Ian has not made any derogatory remarks about you but he has commented on the way in which you have expressed yourself and said that there is no need for rudeness. You might not think you were being rude when you wrote ” ‘Might have worked’ – what world are you living in?“, but it’s a pretty sharp rebuke to someone who has been here a long time and who you know quite well if only from his writings, and as I said previously, I think Ian’s comment was mild and reasonable. I am not taking sides between you and Ian; seeing strong personalities in action can be enjoyable but we – those of us on the side-lines looking on – don’t need to see the gory bits. If you think that if you don’t challenge Ian’s accusation of rudeness the public will think he is right, and think all the worse of you, then you underestimate the public’s intelligence. The sort of people who come to this website are quite capable of making a judgment over such an observation without the need for a rebuttal which can in itself be provocative. I am sorry if you think the public already has a bad opinion of you and will think all the worse of you if you don’t constantly challenge any slights you perceive, because I think you have a good following here with a lot of people supporting your principled and moral stand on many subjects. There are many ways available of getting your point across, some nicer than others, so the choice is yours. The public prefer the polite ways and will show more respect to those that use them.

I lived for nearly thirty years in a large semi-detached house built in 1902. It was Edwardian by date but Victorian in conception and represented the apogee of Victorian domestic convenience and technology. I don’t suppose it ever had the imprint of an architect on its plans and was probably copied by a speculative builder from one of the many designs available in the pattern books of the time. The fact that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, were built in a similar style throughout the country is a testament to its acceptability and desirability. They could be scaled up for the grand villa or down for the urban terrace, but they had similar details across the range. And the fact that most of them are still standing while other types have come and gone – or not been repeated – proves their worth. They have proved to be eminently adaptable and even today families are investing in them and developing them with loft conversions, side-return extensions, open plan layouts, internal downstairs facilities, and improvements in heating and energy conservation, without destroying their essential character. That says a lot and is why builders and architects are in high demand.

My favourite style of domestic building, for sheer elegance and street-scene harmony, is the Georgian town house, but I have never lived in one and doubt their practicality for modern needs – there are plenty of them about, though, and they seem to be very popular.

Until recently we lived in a new-build house [2012] which, by contrast, was spacious and comfortable but supremely dull, and there wasn’t much you could do with it to make it more personal or distinctive. The modern houses have all mod cons in abundance [we had five toilets, three shower cubicles, and a utility room nearly as big as the garage] but it led to the compartmentalisation of personal activities [like using computers] in separate spaces rather than the sense of a family home. Far from being the heart of the home the large kitchen was just a sterile workspace where refreshments were prepared at three of four punctuation points during the day. It looked wonderful but it had more the air of a laboratory than a cosy domestic hub. No other house on the development was the same as ours so it was impossible to see how other families lived in the same sort of property. It was built for nine and occupied by two – perhaps that was what was wrong. There were bigger houses and I suspect they had the same characteristics however much their owners placed big ornaments around the rooms or hung up large letters spelling H O M E. There is much more to a home than an arrangement of building materials and I think the designers should look at how people actually like to live rather than how they think people should live.

Vynor: the Royal Albert Hall had dreadful acoustics when it was first built. Part of the problem lay in the curved interior, which absorbed too much sound and the ceiling – which reflected too much, so an audible and annoying echo was created. The ‘flying saucers’ suspended from the ceiling were introduced to eradicate the echo and leave the hall with a pleasant decay, rather than a ringing echo. They were introduced in the ’60s. I didn’t notice the echo when I played there in the mid-’60s, but apparently it was obvious to those in certain seats.

You think not John ?
Defamation of character on a public website is breaking the laws of this country which overrule any “get out clauses ” on a website .

Read more-quote-
Think before you tweet
It’s easy to post an opinion or joke online. But that one tweet or Facebook status can reach an audience far beyond what was expected, or intended. And if you say the wrong thing, you could face severe legal consequences.

Libel: According to research for law firm Wiggin, 46% of 18- to 24-year-olds were unaware that they could be sued for tweeting an unsubstantiated rumour about another person.
But if a false statement causes “serious harm” to a person’s reputation, it may be libellous under the Defamation Act 2013

And deleting the post does not prevent a claim as it may have been carried elsewhere on the social media stream; the length of time the post was visible for will only affect the amount of damages payable-end of quote.

But even more seriously what you are saying is that somebody can defaim me on Which ? and I have no legal course of action nor be given the opportunity to defend myself ??

IF that is what you are implying/saying please say it in clear unambiguous terms because this is very serious .
I know the law of the land and if you think any judge in an English court would uphold the dictatorial “right ” to defaim a poster and block the same poster trying to clear his/her name put it in straightforward legal terms .

Duncan – What I wrote was that there was no legal right of reply on a public website. I thought that was clear and unambiguous.

I agree with you that everyone has the right to sue for defamation through the courts but that is not the same as having a right of reply in what is in effect a correspondence column.

As I said before, it was mildly, and in my opinion reasonably, suggested by Ian that you had used rudeness in retorting to his comment.

People are entitled to state something that they genuinely believe to be true. To succeed in a defamation claim such a statement must have caused, or would be likely to cause, serious harm to the claimant’s reputation.

Of course, to be defamed a person has to have a perfectly unblemished reputation in the first place and the court will consider all the evidence presented.

This Conversation was introduced by Which? Legal and I am sure they will be keeping an eye on its contents to deal with any potential illegality.

john-In that case if that is a stated legal point I “should ” be able to reply in kind to any adverse comments directed at me , its not me that starts this off you know .

Thats my whole point nobody complains when I am put down but as soon as I reply I am the one in the wrong in what world is that justice ?

You don’t have a right to reply, Duncan, but this site allows you to do so as long as you comply with the community guidelines. So far as I can see nothing you have written in this thread has been subjected to moderation.

The basic elements of this ding-dong are as follows –

1. Ian made a reasonable comment.
2. You took exception and rebuked him.
3. Ian said there was no need for rudeness.
4. You retorted “Rudeness, Ian? it hasn’t stopped you in the past”.

Was not No. 4 your exercise of a “right of reply”?

If I were in your shoes I would quit while I was winning.

I shall not be drawn on who starts these spats as grown-ups should be above that sort of defence.

You will have to come to your own conclusions in respect of your final sentence.

This has been over a long period of time John not today I dont accept one way remarks on myself on a public website without being given the opportunity to reply thats not natural justice .

In real life I have been in many physical fights as allowing somebody to dictate to you and control your life is completely-totally unacceptable to me, I refuse to live with phobias built up by others not in my nature -never will be.

Obeying the laws of the land is one thing but being dictated to through arrogance etc is something I completely rebel against.