Opinion – Page 434
-
Comment
A fundamental flaw
The proposals to review Building Regulations regularly every six years looks like a throwback to the seventies to me (I am a former building control officer).
-
Comment
A place for sarcasm
I am reassured to see from the photos attached to the article Welly Garden City (14 March, pages 60-62), that the landscape and natural countryside is being so effectively held back and not allowed to encroach on yet another “green development”.
-
Comment
Voice of the common man
Congratulations on your article about pleural plaques (14 March, page 36), as it is an important issue that deserves prominent and regular attention.
-
Comment
New tricks
Regarding the fact that the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) is to be axed and its responsibilities reallocated to local authorities (18 March, building.co.uk), I think this shift in emphasis is a good idea.
-
Comment
To complete the list …
I noticed that your article on The Sunday Times’ good employers list (14 March, page 15) missed out Royal Haskoning.
-
-
CommentFirst impressions: Projects by Gehry and Daniel Libeskind
Architecture students from Nottingham University look at five featured images from the Building website and tell us what they think
-
Comment
Deeper and down for US house prices
As we consider, or for that matter dismiss the possibility of a house price crash in the UK it is perhaps worth taking a look at the shape of things in the US.The most respected figures for house prices come from the S&P/Case Shiller index and this shows prices down ...
-
CommentThe stranglers
One hand is called administrative efficiency. The other is called funding projections. Together they are throttling the life out of education in the creative arts. We have to fight back while we still can.
-
Comment
An unfair adjudication: Humes Building Contractors Ltd vs Charlotte Homes (Surrey) Ltd
Humes Building Contractors Ltd sought to enforce by way of summary judgment an adjudicator’s decision for £158,486.26 plus VAT. The building contract was based upon a JCT Intermediate Form of Building Contract with Contractors Design 2005 Edition. Relations between the parties deteriorated and the defendant purported to terminate the contract ...
-
CommentBecoming one
Many projects go wrong because the way they’re set up means they have no chance of going right. But what has that got to do with the Zen of marine engine repair?
-
Comment
Reinwood vs Brown: You again?
The highest court in the land has just given its second decision on the Construction Act. Never mind the parties, it’s two wins out of two for the JCT…
-
CommentIcon, you con, we con, they con …
Open mike To say you’re going to produce an iconic building is an act of hubris, a confession of illiteracy and a good indication that you don’t really understand design.
-
Comment
Construction boom forecast to slump
The latest forecast from Hewes & Associates is not one that will fill the faint hearted with comfort as they return to work from their Easter break.Hewes's rather bleak take on the prospects for UK construction suggests that the industry is heading for a fairly prolonged recession taking output in ...
-
Comment
Government housing strategy holed below the water line
As if Gordon Brown hasn't enough on his plate at the moment, this morning he received a letter from the Home Builders Federation telling him that his housing policy doesn't stack up.The letter sent by HBF Executive Chairman Stewart Baseley warns Mr Brown that he faces stark choices between the ...
-
-
Comment
Costly mistakes
Late payment is to do with weak legislation, of which the big boys take advantage.
-
Comment
Room for improvement
In reply to Joe Martin’s letter “Easy as LCC” (7 March, page 39), I thoroughly endorse his exhortation to do life-cycle costing (LCC).
-
Comment
Material matters
I am glad Mr Woolas has spoken out, as recorded in your article “Minister predicts death of brick and concrete in decades” (3 March, building.co.uk).
-
Comment
Ken again?
It’s debatable whether the London Plan was anything other than a pointless waste of taxpayers’ money, as noted in the article “Should we vote for Ken again?” (7 March, page 3).