First world problems .. who'd have thought
https://www.thecut.com/2021/02/432-park-nyc-building-for-the-ultrarich-is-falling-apart.html
First world problems .. who'd have thought
https://www.thecut.com/2021/02/432-park-nyc-building-for-the-ultrarich-is-falling-apart.html
Shame about that building. But this is not about the billionaires at all, its about the quality of any building that is built, regardless of who will be using it.
The biggest problem is barely meeting minimum standards to save money, and build structures that will not perform well in the future.
Not good for the environment.
Whos to blame is the biggest problem .. Is it the fault of the architects or engineers at all and if not why not
Whos to blame is the biggest problem .. Is it the fault of the architects or engineers at all and if not why not
It’s not about the architects or the engineers - this is about US legislation that allows development costs to be stripped down to the bare minimum. Building control do not monitor the process well or even have strict guidelines in how they should maintain the standards that were passed in planning. The UK is no different.
This is typical design and build contract stuff - the architects and engineers are merely following the direction as set out in the development project. They have no say in how the project develops. All they do is make changes to the drawings to cut down cost.
This building wouldn’t have a problem selling the apartments, it’s catered to the wealthy being on Millionaire Row….so you would think that having a structure that was stable, working elevators would be a priority but as it states in the article from curbed.com.
“It’s the way development operates in New York. It’s structurally corrupt. The people who put up the buildings are not accountable for their quality. As long as problems don’t crop up before they unload the property, they can do whatever they want.”
Not enticing to work as architect on design and bulid then . Just saying
It’s the way development operates in New York.
Well in the UK things are not that far off. It is not as easy as it sounds really.
Essentially you need your business to be profitable, so it comes down to authorities whose role it is to ensure that every building meets certain standards.
Either those standards need to be improved or the monitoring needs to be taken to a different level.
Not enticing to work as architect on design and bulid then . Just saying
Designers and Engineers are usually novated at the tender stage if they were hired by the client for the design, so essentially they are working for the contractor. It is their job to ensure that any changes that are made are within planning and regulations.
As I said, profit margin is key so everything is value engineered to cut costs. Not cutting quality as much as getting a similar product to that which was specified but at a much lower cost.
Hello,
The design integrity is also compromised in D&B. What gets approved at the planning stage can unfortunately be changed with amendments during construction. I think it is these amendments which push value engineering more than it should be.
Another risk is that changes to the initial design alters not only the aesthetic to the structure but how it sits within the surroundings.
Excessive use of VE is a recipe for disaster. Just like with Grenfell.
Regards,
J. White
This " VE " business sounds suspect . If it doesnt work why is it used at all
I preface this by saying it's my second post but
This " VE " business sounds suspect . If it doesnt work why is it used at all
Value Engineering can be a valuable process. Of course like most things in life, moderation is key.
https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Value_engineering_in_building_design_and_construction
Excessive use of VE is a recipe for disaster. Just like with Grenfell.
As we can see from all the information that is emerging from the inquiry there are far greater issues as to what caused the Grenfell tragedy and I don't think it was primarily Value Engineering (makes me wonder what elements of the original design and specifications were changed).
About Grenfell, cladding performance was significantly degraded, which is the opposite of VE's intent, not to mention manufacturers withholding crucial information about fire retardancy.
What about the part at the bottom where it is criticised for " cutting costs and quality ”
What about the part at the bottom where it is criticised for " cutting costs and quality ”
If you're referring to Dame Judith Hackitt's comments, once again what she said was in the context of Grenfell, and she is right.
But if you look to just cut cost indiscriminately with no regards to quality whatsoever you're not value-enginering anything, much less so when you fudge product test results. That is criminal behaviour.
© 2020 – 2024 arqnetwork - All rights reserved.