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

This comment was removed at the request of the user

This comment was removed at the request of the user

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.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

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.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

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.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

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.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

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.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

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 comment was removed at the request of the user

Interesting observations. And |I agree with them! I have spent some years in a 1907 semi-detached which was a trifle difficult on bathroom size …. But then there was also an outside toilet under the house.

We now have a French house built in the 1700’s I think but very likely rebuilt from earlier times as it is adjacent to a 12th century Church. It appears on the Napoleonic map of 1835. It may not be Georgian but it is a nice equivalent.

Room sizes and number are fine but the big draw is the 260 sq metre old barn which allows for plenty of activities without impinging on the house. The running costs of such a place would be more significant but we spend the cold months in an adjoining small building 80 sq. mtrs. which is heavily insulated and with wooden shutters even the 2mm glassed windows are reasonably effective at retaining the warmth from the two radiant heaters on the ground floor.

As to modern designed properties there is a Ordinary Member of the charity who has raised the matter of poor design and poor build with Which? but to no effect. As a building industry insider he is better placed than many to notice the tricks of the trade.

I can recall seeing “bedrooms” that were furnished with undersized beds. I can also remember a very expensive luxury house where the first floor patio had a stone wall where the view was across the Bristol Channel and glass panels looking to the side views …. astonishing. It was also noticeable for having the cheapest small gas hob in the kitchen. I understand upselling kitchens is now a way to abstract more money by the builder from the purchaser.

Whether the new CEO, Anabel Hoult, will grasp the thorny question of how Which? has avoided casting a critical eye over industry practices that disadvantage consumers in their largest purchase we shall see.

As an example this one of 196 entries at Trustpilot

”
Terrible service

Terrible service, not interested in making your neighborhood and community a pleasant place to live within, only interested in money and to perform as little maintenance they can get away with.
~50% of raised income is lost in admin / profit
Never able to show quarterly estate audits, when repeatably asked for, which implies they never take place. Always blames the local contractors, which is unfair as they select them and monitor them.
All their role should be is to manage maintenance, collect fees and work closely within each community to ensure a good days pay for a good days work.
This company isnt transparent and bullies it’s customers with strongly worded worst case scenario statements for payments that have been known to be inaccurate at best. They rely on busy middle class people not having time to complain, this is a service company at its worse. They impact families all throughout the UK not just the odd local estate, please take time to read the similar themes within trustpilot and a wider reach by searching in Google. The complaints against them arent just by the one or two disgruntled customers. The press is starting to pick up on the poor level of maintenance and the elevated prises. All the issues noted have been occuring for 10 years and should be easy for a company to rectify and be transparent. A simple local management plan for each estate that is agreed to, published, adhered to and discussed with the community would be a great start but there is no motivation to do so with the current leadership and so nothing is going to change any time soon. Which is a missed opportunity as it could be a great company. It’s a shame seeing the company started from a local government service with people and community as it’s founding principles.

It’s also interesting that rather than improving upon the poor comments and less than one 🌟 rating in trustpilot they try and fight them to get them removed. They need to stop, think and take a look at what they do from a customer’s point of view from root to branch. They start and finish from a “we know best” little person patronising point of view. You can’t rewrite history but you can improve the future. Treat your customers with respect Greenbelt and they will respect you back. This is the whole point of general public reviews.

Poor service, high fees increasing above the terms of reference, unwilling to improve, hides behind flakey legal standpoints and isn’t on your side to maintain the surroundings you live within.”