【24h】

Letters

机译:字母

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

I think to exclude the RIBA as a core contributor to this important inquiry is a mistake by the selection team ('Grenfell Tower inquiry turns down RIBA's offerto help', AJ online 22.11.17). The RIBA and its specialist architects could make a very valid part of the team, and draw on a wealth of experience and knowledge as building and design experts.Architects are the only members of the design team who have a full understanding of the whole building process and specification details. Why would they not be included? Why is there no architect as one of the three key assessors? Maybe they don't realise the value we architects bring and are out of touch, or don't want to engage a full team of experts! The result would be a lot quicker and more professional if they did. It's not too late to have the RIBA included?
机译:我认为,将RIBA排除在这一重要询问的核心贡献之外是the选团队的错误(“ Grenfell Tower询问拒绝了RIBA的帮助”,AJ在线22.11.17)。 RIBA及其专业建筑师可以成为团队中非常有效的一部分,并可以吸收作为建筑和设计专家的丰富经验和知识。建筑师是设计团队中唯一对整个建筑过程有充分了解的成员和规格详细信息。为什么不将它们包括在内?为什么没有建筑师作为三位主要评估者之一?也许他们没有意识到我们的架构师所带来的价值,并失去了联系,或者他们不想聘请完整的专家团队!如果这样做的话,结果将更快,更专业。包括RIBA还为时不晚?

著录项

  • 来源
    《The architects' journal》 |2017年第23期|118-118|共1页
  • 作者

  • 作者单位
  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-18 05:15:33

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号