20 August 2018

This week our insurer circulated an advice regarding the use of composite cladding products.

Very topical at the moment of course, and the advice was sufficiently alarming to probably generate a knee jerk response of a decade of buildings to come clad only in masonry and cement based products.

In considering the matter I did reflect on how we in concert, with our clients and other collaborators, go through the process of design and selection. While I suspect that all of us rile against the notion of endless regulation, I would argue that the great skill and effort we apply to often making the nonsensical comply means that we really do need the regulation to at least set a base.

I reflected on the array of products we happily specify into buildings which I think we would know with common sense may resemble a firefighter if touched with a flame.

I considered the great efforts we go to in the performance engineering of facades so that we work around the common sense solution of actually just shading the windows. I thought of the machinations and manipulations we pursue to avoid triggering a lift or a new disabled access, or more amenities… and so forth.

I know that a number of these things cost money.

I know that often we are encouraged even directed to pursue the alternate solution.

But aren’t they usually better? Do we apply the effort to think about things in a common sense way? In a way that contemplates the notion of legacy.

I walked down two different sets of stairs in two different very large public buildings recently. I felt uncomfortable on both of them on account of maximum rise and minimum step in compliance with the NCC. I’m sure they are ‘legal’… but given the purpose of the building, the potential volumes of movement and the expectation of a broad range of ages and abilities, I don’t think they were good design.

Not capital A architecture I know, but just common sense.

Mariano De Duonni challenged me at breakfast the other day when I asked a group of larger practices ‘what is one thing the Institute could do for you?’

He noted it was a curious question because in fact the Institute ‘is’ them… it’s a membership organisation. A guild. Since the whole thing only exists because we are members and it has no other independent purpose, common sense defines that it is actually us doing things for ourselves.

I like this repositioning. The Institute is a collective and a framework for us to work together, for ourselves and with a single voice, but ultimately it will only champion what we as a profession champion, value what we value, and do what we do.

That’s empowering when you think of it that way.

Mario Dreosti
SA Chapter President