Building risks
a building that has been built to the architect’s or designer’s performance specification? Or does it fall prey to ‘equal or approved’? When a specifier has completed the list of
products required for a project, this is written at the bottom and gives licence to contractors to use lesser quality products to cut costs. This is a major issue, particularly in the UK, and could be abolished with one simple change. It’s a number one priority when you consider that these projects could be commercial, residential or public buildings such as airport terminals, schools or hospitals which hundreds of thousands of people pass through each week. These aren’t just numbers; they could be our loved ones.
Compromising safety
Material substitutions chosen simply to reduce cost should never be considered if safety could be compromised, but unfortunately this is something that has been seen not just in the UK, but around the globe. One notable case, the Lotus Riverside
Complex in Shanghai in 2009, saw a triad of low quality materials, rushed work and poor construction techniques result in the collapse of a 15 storey apartment building. It claimed the life of one worker and had huge financial repercussions for those who had invested in properties in the scheme. It is accepted that this happens in the construction industry, but why is it happening?
The cost down focus is not present in other industries which are just as essential. It is unlikely that you would see it in the aviation industry, for example, where they pay as much attention to aircraft construction as to cost control. It’s difficult to conceive that they would contemplate component specification changes based on a low cost option, rather than taking into consideration the safety of passengers. It seems that, because buildings do not move like cars, planes or trains, their safety features are seen as less important somehow. This is a psychological block that needs to shift and fast. The global construction industry needs
to make a change to the way these projects are thought about, from the very early design stages right through to construction. One such change could be brought about by introducing third party material accreditations from a body like the British Board of Agrément, rather than simply relying on the claims of manufacturers, who may not have undertaken the necessary quality assurance measures. How can it be acceptable for the product manufacturers to self certify when lives are at stake? It’s madness.
Idea to reality
It comes as no surprise that taking a building from initial conception through to final realisation is a carefully interwoven process involving many components, different trades
FOCUS
www.frmjournal.com JUNE 2019
23
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
