The diminished role\nof architects combined with poor procurement processes and a failing regulatory\nsystem has caused a perfect storm for multiresidential developments with\nconsumers and consumer confidence just the first casualties, says Australian Institute of\nArchitects (the Institute) NSW Chapter President Ms Kathlyn Loseby.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2018While it is not clear from much of the media discussion about recent high-profile multistorey residential complexes, NSW State Environment Planning Policy no 65 (SEPP 65) stipulates that an architect must be responsible for the design of these buildings,\u2019 said Ms Loseby. \u2018Through their training and professional codes, architects are uniquely positioned to deliver positive outcomes for end users.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n
An architect has five years\u2019 professional education, a minimum of two years\u2019 practical experience, has passed the Architectural Practice Examination, and has been admitted to a Register of Architects managed by a state or territory Architects Registration Board. In NSW architects must undertake formal continuing professional development to maintain registration. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Registered architects who are\nmembers of the Australian Institute of Architects must abide by a code of\nconduct which stipulates strict obligations to clients, the profession,\ncolleagues and, critically for consumer protection and community\nsafety, to the public. Members must strive to improve the environment\nand quality of life within the communities in which they work, to be fully\nmindful of the effect of their work on the interests of all stakeholders, and\nto improve\nstandards of health and safety for the protection and welfare of all members of\nthe community.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So what has gone so\nwrong to result in failures such as Opal Tower, the more recent Mascot complex,\nand the many other cases that don\u2019t make news headlines?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2018Changes in\nprocurement practices in recent years have seen the role of the architect\ncommonly reduced from lead consultant involved from go to whoa to design\nconsultant with often minimal involvement,\u2019 Ms Loseby explained. \u2018Typically\nthese practices correlate with an emphasis on time and cost of building \u2013 ie\nspeed and greed \u2013 at the expense of quality, to which safety is integral.\u2019 <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Value engineering,\nparticularly in the popular design and construct procurement model, prioritises\ntime and cost over quality, choosing the false economy of immediate cost\nreductions that lead to vastly more expensive maintenance and remediation. The\nresults of this have too frequently been highly unfavourable for the built\nenvironment and disastrous for owners and renters who suffer the consequences. Their\nmisfortune is compounded by holes in the insurance system the Institute is\ncalling on government to address to provide better consumer protection with\nregard to multistorey residential buildings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2018While consumers are\nhit first, a lack of consumer confidence will also come back to bite developers\nand governments in turn will struggle to meet housing targets,\u2019 said Ms Loseby.\n\u2018There are no real winners in this scenario. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2018It is too early to say what has\ngone wrong in the specific case of the Mascot apartment block recently\nevacuated due to safety concerns,\u2019 continued Ms Loseby. \u2018It is clearly\nestablished however that there exist deeply concerning problems in the building\nand construction industry that require strong and swift governmental response\nto restore consumer confidence and ensure safety. Implementing key\nrecommendations from the Shergold Weir report and final Opal Tower report will\nbe an important step toward this.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Institute has been at the\nforefront of industry calls for better regulation and enforcement of\nAustralia\u2019s building and construction industry. In particular, the Institute stands\nin support of measures that bring the regulation of other building\npractitioners closer into line with the standards applicable to professionals\nlike architects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2018Regulations must also support\nindependent and qualified certification and insurance,\u2019 said Ms Loseby. \u2018Certification\nshould only be done by registered professionals qualified in the domain in\nwhich they have professional indemnity insurance, and who are trained and\nregularly assessed of their capabilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2018Furthermore, the current market\nsees developers and builders undermining the design, documentation and site\nobservation stages of the professional team of architects and engineers, and\n\u2018shopping around\u2019 to change the team and reduce fees. This erodes quality as\nproject knowledge is lost, and the consumer loses.\u2019 <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Institute is also calling for the procurement of building projects to prioritise quality. This means design protocols have to be measured not only at the beginning of the project but all the way through to completion. It means qualified professionals concerned about the safety and quality of all the community must be involved to their full capacity from start to end, including post-occupancy evaluation which should become mandatory. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ms Loseby advised: \u2018Increasing\nquality may increase the construction costs<\/s> and time, but evacuating\npeople from an unsafe building costs substantially more and takes longer to fix\n\u2013 as does stakeholder confidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2018Quality must become the top\npriority,\u2019 she continued. \u2018We want a built environment where you can walk your\nchildren down the street, stop in a caf\u00e9 for an ice cream, shop for your\ngroceries, grab a book from the library, and return home all the while feeling\nsafe and secure.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n