Two brief points in connection with your article on my “re-education” (12 November, page 44).
First, we only designed one of the three schools in the Crawley PFI; Nicholas Hare Architects is working on two others that are still on site. I believe this is the right approach because schools in large PFI bundles will always receive better attention if the workload has been shared between practices.
Second, there is still a great deal for all parties to learn if we are to achieve genuine quality from the PFI process. The self-critical list referred to in the article was prepared to be shared with HBG and, to their credit, we will be readdressing some issues at Oriel High School. More importantly, however, it was also drawn up in order to improve processes on future projects and incorporate lessons learned.
As your article made clear, I am passionate about the struggle to achieve the best possible schools. If we are to persist with PFI (and it does have some advantages), it feels essential that design-led practices should be involved and attempt to forge genuine partnerships with providers as we have been doing with HBG and others. Perhaps we can hope for real quality the third or fourth time around.
Richard Feilden, Feilden Clegg Bradley Architects