All Inbox articles
-
Comment
Inbox: A numbers game
Readers note that a decision not to invest can be a wise one, that the big helping the small could amount to fewer accidents and that some calculations about the Green Deal could be flawed
-
Comment
Inbox: News analysis
Readers interpret recent news of government funding for housing and architects’ unemployment
-
Comment
Inbox: pointing the finger
It’s a matter of accountability this week, as readers blame the ONS for overestimating and distorting statistics, columnists for failing to give the full story, and arsonists - not timber - for being a fire risk
-
Comment
Inbox: Worry not
What’s the best test?Regarding Rab Bennetts’ article (15 July, page 26), as an architect-turned-procurement-of-architects-specialist for a large software company, I am interested in seeing an example or a little more detail about the system for procuring architects that he would use to get a better qualitative assessment. He makes some ...
-
CommentInbox: true colours
This week we focus on colour, shape and scale: from blue language about would-be green buildings, to the demise of the wacky London skyscraper and the rise of the mega-consultant
-
Comment
The whole picture
Knowledge is power this week as readers ponder the unknown factors affecting the new planning rules, rail against the complexity of government schemes and put Hansom right on an issue of detail
-
Comment
Inbox: Universally challenged
This week, our readers take issue with ’champagne-drinking’ architects, plans to cut the cost of skyscrapers and the industry’s approach to labour and skills
-
Comment
Bank on this
Money pervades readers’ thoughts this week, as they ponder project costs and value for money, whether suicide bids ever pay off, banks not lending - and what does zero mean, anyway?
-
CommentWho can we blame?
The knives are out this week for ineffectual green policymakers and boardroom cavemen who refuse to embrace BIM but, strangely, construction lawyers come out of it all unscathed
-
Comment
Time will tell
It’s back to the future this week as readers reflect on whether or not the Localism Bill will deliver what it promises and if BIM heralds a bright new future
-
Comment
Inbox: who's right?
There’s little consensus to be found this week: the merits of BIM are in dispute, as is the the economic case for high-speed rail, and readers even disagree about introducing double decker trains to the UK
-
Comment
Call in the experts
Readers offer their specialist knowledge on matters various: a QS stands up for QSs, a solicitor fills a gap in a legal piece and a commuter appreciates the view
-
Comment
Righting wrongs
This week readers take on iffy construction output data, poorly worded legislation, lawyers who overlook partnering and the rationale for building energy-from-waste facilities
-
Comment
The small print
Readers are concerned with the nitty gritty this week. Did completion mean practical completion or not? Was it a bank or a public holiday? More importantly, to pay or not to pay?
-
Comment
Inbox: One fine day
Imagine a world in which all building projects had superlative design, ultra efficient costs, sustainable solutions, spotless health and safety - and there were no outraged letters to publish
-
Comment
Inbox: What a waste
Readers bemoan a perceived lack of ambition on Oxford Street’s revamp, unsuccessful attempts to cut costs on education projects and QSs who fail to tackle underbidding and uphold ethical practices
-
Comment
Spread the word
Hansom is right (25 March, page 19) that the CIOB has better things to do than worry about a definition of construction management; and we’re doing them
-
CommentMore nuclear, please
Having been struck by one of the largest earthquakes ever recorded, then flooded by a tidal wave over 10m high, the Fukushima reactors, understandably, suffered some damage
-
Comment
Defects after completion
Dominic Helps wrote an illuminating account of what damages a client might expect if serious faults are found in an otherwise completed and occupied building (18 March, page 47)