OPINION:A response to Michael Casey's Opinion article criticising the architecture profession in Ireland, by JOHN GRABY
THE KERNEL of Michael Casey’s argument is that architects and the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland (RIAI) have drafted a contract so as to prejudice the consumers’ interest and that architects are seeking to “deflect responsibility from themselves”. He bases this on an analysis of a building contract, SF88 (which, contrary to his assertion of sinister intent, can be bought at the RIAI bookshop).
His argument is based on a false premise, as architects’ responsibilities to their clients are set out in a separate document, the client-architect agreement, not the building contract.
He attempts to leave the impression that the building contract governs the relationship with the architect, which is untrue.
He claims architects’ duties to clients are vague. Not true. The client-architect agreement sets out architects’ duties to clients in detail. While this agreement encapsulates an architect’s duties, it has also been developed even more extensively through case law.
Casey emphasises the relationship between the architect and builder, suggesting there is a “cosy association” between both – again, not true.
The client-architect agreement makes it clear that the architect’s duty is to “administer the building contract as the client’s agent, while acting impartially between the client and contractor”. No cosy association here! Such actions by an architect would be in clear breach of the client-architect agreement.
Casey makes reference to the issue of architects inspecting building works and claims “the architect has no responsibility to ensure that the works are up to standard”. Not true. The client-architect agreement states “the architect will visit the site at intervals . . . to inspect the progress and quality of the work and to determine that the work is being carried out generally in accordance with the contract documents”.
The other key argument he makes is that SF88 is anti-competitive and anti-consumer. Yet again, not true. He selectively quotes from a contract that does not represent the contract between architect and consumer, and uses it to claim consumers receive inadequate protection and therefore it should be scrapped or be subject to examination by the Competition Authority, consumer representatives and the International Monetary Fund.
He seems unaware the Competition Authority reported on the architectural profession in late 2003, and recommendations were generally implemented.
Casey advises that no client should sign the contract. We hope this advice is ignored – clients would leave themselves in a vulnerable position if they had no contract in place. His hypothesis that the contract is unfair and one-sided does not stand up to scrutiny.
It simply would not be possible here to address all the inaccuracies in his article, so I am focusing on some of the key issues:
He believes the architect becomes, “through some mysterious process, the administrator of the contract between the client/employer and the builder/contractor”. Not true. The architect is described in the building contract as the agent of the client.
He says responsibility for safety and health is being “delegated” by architects to the contractor. The responsibilities of architects, engineers and contractors are set out by law and not by the RIAI.
Reference is made to the issue of completion and who decides whether the building is complete. The key decision here is whether the building is capable of being used for the purposes for which it was designed. The law is quite clear – architects have a legal duty to make this decision.
He claims where a builder “runs over time, the architect can grant him an extension”. The terms under which an extension can be granted are set out in the contract, and the architect can only grant an extension if these terms are met.
Conciliation and arbitration are portrayed as a sinister professional plot. Far from it. Arbitration procedures are governed by the Arbitration Acts – drafted by civil servants and passed by the Oireachtas, not the RIAI, whose only role – akin to other bodies – is to nominate conciliators or arbitrators.
Whatever about inaccuracies in his view of the responsibilities of architects, he is entitled to his opinions on architecture – but even the most cursory inspection of the work of RIAI architects over recent decades would demolish his statement that “Architects have done little to improve the built environment with any degree of originality”.
Numerous international authorities have placed Irish architecture in the first rank.
Irish architects have won international competitions against world-class architects in Austria, France, Egypt, Italy, Hungary and the UK, and are providing services worldwide.
A Dublin practice, Grafton Architects, won the first World Building Prize in 2008.
Recently, as reported by Frank McDonald in The Irish Times, “legendary architect critic” Prof Kenneth Frampton of Columbia University complimented Irish architecture for “its success in working for a sense of place, and putting value on the local versus the global”.
Casey writes that during the Celtic Tiger period architects could charge up to 30 per cent of the cost of works. Not true.
An independent survey showed the average fee charged for domestic projects during the period was 10 per cent of the cost, while the average fee for larger projects – commercial and public – ranged from 4 to 7 per cent, a long way shy of 30 per cent.
We are all entitled to our opinions – but facts must also have their place.