Quote:
Originally Posted by kcantor
and wrong as noted above...
no, he's talking about the inability to readily visit a provincial public building by people who should be able to readily visit a provincial public building.
i read the statements as more of a comment addressing the buildings' failures than donna per se. and i'm not sure they're particularly inaccurate assessments.
in both cases faults like these belong to the entire teams - including the owners - but if the architect wants to take full credit for the design - as donna has enjoyed doing with both of these buildings - he or she must also accept full responsibility for that design as well. and that includes the faults.
as for being "too harsh", i am pretty sure that i've read much harsher in terms of uncomplimentary comments directed at architects and firms that was based on their work, both specific and in general, than this.
|
"It really is a complete fail, but not unexpected from the "architect" aka "the butcher of the convention centre"."
Pointed name calling that doesn't actually address the issue.
It's a competitive P3 with a scope provided by a Client (AI), are you suggesting that the Architect submit a non-compliant bid?
I don't disagree with the point that the accessibility is lacking. That is very valid. However, let's get to the actual cause and party for accountability (AI) instead of obscuring the issue because it's easy to pick on Donna Clare.