{"id":756826,"date":"2024-09-24T08:20:59","date_gmt":"2024-09-24T07:20:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/?p=756826"},"modified":"2024-09-24T09:22:42","modified_gmt":"2024-09-24T08:22:42","slug":"learning-from-grenfell","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/learning-from-grenfell","title":{"rendered":"Learning from Grenfell: architects still have much soul searching to do"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u2018For those looking on from the outside, the findings of the Grenfell Inquiry<\/a> must be staggering,\u2019 says Hari Phillips, the departing co-founder of Bell Phillips. \u2018Yet, for those of us who work in the housing sector, it is sadly, horribly familiar.\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n

The inquiry\u2019s second phase sought to find out how highly flammable cladding, pinpointed as a cause of the rapid spread of the fire, had come to be installed on the west London tower a year before the 2017 tragedy.<\/span><\/p>\n

What it uncovered was a broken construction industry with Grenfell its most horrific manifestation. A manipulated architect-appointment process and a confused design and build set-up had led to a dangerous sidestepping of responsibilities, resulting in a contagion of buck-passing.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The findings<\/a>, published earlier this month by the inquiry panel, led by former judge Martin Moore-Bick with architect Thouria Istephan and housing expert Ali Akbor, pointed to a \u2018rotten culture\u2019 which paved the way for multiple failures throughout the supply chain.<\/span><\/p>\n

Almost all the key players within the chaotic and deadly refurbishment of the 1970s high-rise apartment block were heavily criticised in the inquiry\u2019s damning 1,700-page report.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

They included: the architect, Studio E; contractor Rydon; insulation manufacturers Celotex and Kingspan; ACM panel producer Arconic; fa\u00e7ade engineer Harley; client the Tenant Management Organisation (TMO); the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; building control; and \u2018decades of failure\u2019 by central government.\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The report\u2019s unequivocal condemnation prompted first-take headlines in the national media such as Sky News<\/i>\u2019s: \u2018Grenfell residents \u201cfailed by incompetence, dishonesty and greed\u201d\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n

The product manufacturers were seized upon for \u2018manipulating\u2019 test results and for their \u2018deeply entrenched and persistent dishonesty\u2019 in selling flammable materials. And ministers were accused of sitting on their hands by failing to amend the building regulations, even though there had been ample warning of the dangers, such as the 2009 Lakanal House fire. \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The inquiry panel singled out Studio E for particular criticism<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

There were also significant column inches given over to the architects. Moore-Bick\u2019s inquiry panel had singled out architecture practice Studio E for particular criticism, saying the firm bore an \u2018overriding\u2019 and \u2018very significant degree of responsibility\u2019 for the disaster, which killed 72 people.<\/span><\/p>\n

And, ever present in the shadow of all the reported individual failings, was the design and build \u2018system\u2019. A commonly used way of delivering a building which, at Grenfell, had become so flawed it resulted in scores of\u00a0 <\/span>\u2018avoidable\u2019 deaths. Frustratingly, the inquiry had no remit to tackle procurement or the contractual arrangements between the construction, design and supply team. That did not stop the panel\u2019s architectural expert and former RIBA president, Paul Hyett, demanding a review of existing design and build contracting arrangements. But this recommendation did not make it into the final report.<\/span><\/p>\n

For some, this is a key omis\u00adsion in an otherwise forensic examination and, by ignoring the warped procurement environment, broader lessons of the tragedy won\u2019t be learned. As Russell Curtis of RCKa says<\/a>: \u2018Design and build doesn\u2019t just allow a culture of dereliction of responsibility to perpetuate; it positively encourages it.\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n

So what did the report actually say about both Studio E and the architecture profession\u2019s wider failings? What are the likely ramifications for architects? And what can be done about the issues the inquiry has highlighted across the construction industry?<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The architects had a \u2018very significant degree of responsibility\u2019<\/span><\/h4>\n

However \u2018toxic\u2019 the relationships behind the scenes, and however dysfunctional the chain of responsibility, Moore-Bick\u2019s findings were clear. Studio E had made a series of errors during the refurbishment project \u2013 mistakes and oversights symptomatic of a \u2018widespread failure\u2019 within the profession \u2013 and had worked under a \u2018fundamental misunderstanding\u2019 about the nature of the job, its obligations and responsibilities.<\/span><\/p>\n

Those duties included, as lead architects, overseeing the work of subcontractors and suppliers and a responsibility for drawings and specifications given to subcontractors, such as details of cladding, as well as determining materials, elements and components.<\/span><\/p>\n

During the inquiry the practice, which had never done a tower recladding job, repeatedly argued that others were to blame for the final design and the use of the deadly cladding materials. Yet Moore-Bick claimed that Studio E Architects, which went into liquidation in 2020, had \u2018treated subcontractors and consultants as solely responsible for their work and assumed, without enquiry, that it met the required standards\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n

The report added: \u2018It is clear Studio E took an unduly narrow view of its responsibilities after the novation [to the design and build contractor Rydon].\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n

[Studio E] had an \u2018overriding obligation\u2019 to make sure the work was done properly<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Moore-Bick said the firm had an \u2018overriding obligation, initially to the client [the tenant management organisation] and subsequently to Rydon\u2019, to make sure the work was done properly and that the choice of materials was suitable.<\/span><\/p>\n

He added: \u2018Such a failure to understand the scope of its obligations might, perhaps, have been explicable if the terms of Studio E\u2019s [employment] were unusual, but there is no reason to think that they were, since they were based on standard RIBA terms.\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n

Does this again point to the failings of design and build? Moore-Bick described Studio E\u2019s work on the Grenfell Tower<\/a> refurbishment as \u2018significantly below the standard reasonably to be expected\u2019. Yet thousands of other buildings with unsafe cladding have been identified.<\/span><\/p>\n

Other criticisms presented in the report include Studio E\u2019s failure to \u2018engage\u2019 with expertise in cladding high-rise residential buildings, given the lack of in-house knowledge, while accepting other data \u2018uncritically\u2019. The inquiry also dismissed Studio E\u2019s opening claim that it was justifiable to use ACM and PIR insulation because they had been used on other projects, saying that relying on \u2018what others have done in the past [was] not good enough\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n

What could it mean for architects?<\/span><\/h4>\n

The Grenfell report arrives just as the nation looks set to embark on a major housing drive. A Financial Times <\/i>headline spelt out the potential conundrum: \u2018The UK government faces tension between post-Grenfell safety rules and housebuilding ambitions\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n

Yet tighter regulations seem certain. Speaking on the day the report was published (4 September), inquiry panel member Istephan, a registered health and safety practitioner and former Foster + Partners architect, said the recommendations<\/a> would place \u2018new burdens and responsibilities on people and organisations\u2019. She added: \u2018I make no apologies for that. Put simply, if you work in the construction industry and you do not feel the weight of responsibility you have for keeping people safe, you are in the wrong job.\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n

The panel\u2019s recommendations include a new independent \u2018construction regulator\u2019, a reassessment of the definition of a \u2018higher-risk\u2019 building, a national building control authority and an urgent review of Approved Document B.<\/span><\/p>\n

Some changes have already taken place. Following Judith Hackitt\u2019s earlier \u2018golden thread\u2019 recommendations and backed by new legislation in the Building Safety Act 2022, the ARB is introducing a new mandatory scheme for continuing professional development (CPD) \u2013 a regime which will apply to all registered architects.<\/span><\/p>\n

Olly Wainwright was scathing of the profession\u2019s lack of practical training<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

There could be ramifications for how architects are taught, too, especially given Studio E\u2019s evident lack of familiarity with the Building Regulations on fire safety in tall buildings. Olly Wainwright, in his analysis of the report for The Guardian<\/i>, was scathing of the profession\u2019s lack of practical training.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

He wrote: \u2018[Architecture] is a course that produces countless cod philosophers, gonzo anthropologists and aspiring conceptual artists, but few technically capable designers who know their cavity barriers from their damp-proof membranes.\u2019 In fact, in his final submission, Hyett called for fire safety to become a \u2018key component\u2019 of architectural education. He said all student work \u2018from the earliest project of the first year to the final project at RIBA Part 2 graduation\u2019 should show \u2018appropriate levels of fire safety performance within building design\u2019.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Again, the inquiry report did not go as far as making it one of its 58 recommendations. However, it did urge the ARB and RIBA to \u2018review the changes already made to [improve the education and training of architects] to ensure that they are sufficient in the light of our findings\u2019. The ARB will no doubt have this in its mind when finalising its overhaul of architects\u2019 current three-part architectural education journey \u2013 a new-look system which will focus on a set of must-have \u2018competency outcomes\u2019.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The regulator has also just launched a major consultation on its new code of conduct for architects and specifically highlights the ramifications of the Grenfell report, stating: \u2018[The findings] underscore some of the key principles of professionalism, such as recognising the boundaries of one\u2019s level of competence, and the paramount importance of safety. These principles are enshrined in the draft code and the standards it establishes for the profession.\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n

Soul-searching and fixing the broken system<\/span><\/h4>\n

Prime Minister Keir Starmer was quick to respond to the report, saying the government would look at all the inquiry\u2019s recommendations \u2018in detail\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n

He pledged to \u2018deliver a generational shift in the safety and quality of housing for everyone in this country\u2019, combining a \u2018change in policy and regulation [with] a profound shift in culture and behaviour\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n

Could that mean a rethink for design and build, too?<\/span><\/p>\n

The fact that there remain at least 3,200 residential buildings with cladding in need of removal and replacement is proof of the pervasive industry-wide problems that need addressing.<\/span><\/p>\n

And architects \u2013 though with a diminishing role \u2013 played their part in the larger tragedy.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

As Colm Lacey, former chief executive of Croydon Council\u2019s housing developer, Brick By Brick, and now managing director of Soft Cities, says: \u2018The fact is that architects do commonly specify products without exploring their suitability beyond formal certification.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2018[So], if the architectural community simply draws comfort from this by reading it as a specific architectural incompetency, which is not more commonly held, it runs the risk of missing a crucial opportunity for self-reflection.\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n

It could be a moment for the profession to become a highly-valued and trusted guardian<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It could also be a moment, perhaps, with new duties arising for architects from the principal designer role under the Building Safety Act 2022, for the profession to become a highly-valued and trusted guardian within construction.<\/span><\/p>\n

Because the panel has demanded a change from \u2018all those concerned\u2019 to a system which \u2018prioritises safety over speed and cost\u2019. Turning this money-obsessed ship will not be quick nor easy.<\/span><\/p>\n

David Tigg, director of Tigg Coll, says architects still have much \u2018soul searching\u2019 to do in the wake of the report. And, though he agrees with Hyett that design and build procurement \u2018needs to be reformed\u2019, he adds: \u2018As architects, we need to reassure our clients and colleagues we have the good of those we design for at the centre of the process.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2018We must be way braver in speaking out and always adhering to the highest standards. We have to reclaim this mantle of leadership. To do this, responsibility has to be at its heart.\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Comment: \u2018The UK construction industry is rotten to the core\u2019 \u2013 Hari Phillips<\/span><\/h3>\n

The UK construction industry is fundamentally wrong. It is rotten to the core and it needs to change.<\/p>\n

There is a pervasive culture of cost-cutting, paths of least resistance, inadequate timescales, terrible quality, poor service, low aspiration, cost recovery, responsibility shifting and buck-passing. The sector has in it plenty of good people with the right intentions, but they are operating within a system designed for failure.<\/p>\n

As architects, we need to look this in the face. We need to recognise that our own actions make us complicit in the failings of the industry. It is on all of us to raise standards, to educate and to refuse to bow to the inadequacies of the system. We must refuse to consider unacceptably low fees, unacceptably short timescales, unacceptable scopes of services. We need to ensure we\u2019re provided with the right resources to place ourselves at the heart of the design and construction process and re-learn the skills required to construct buildings.<\/p>\n

I\u2019d like to think the recommendations of the inquiry will ensure that we will never have a tragedy like Grenfell again, but I\u2019m not optimistic. The possibility of another tragedy will remain until the culture of the industry shifts from one driven by profit to one driven by a genuine concern for quality. We all need to play our part.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u2018For those looking on from the outside, the findings of the Grenfell Inquiry must be staggering,\u2019 says Hari Phillips, the departing co-founder of Bell Phillips. \u2018Yet, for those of us who work in the housing sector, it is sadly, horribly familiar.\u2019 The inquiry\u2019s second phase sought to find out how highly flammable cladding, pinpointed as …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":915,"featured_media":756846,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_oasis_is_in_workflow":0,"_oasis_original":0,"ep_exclude_from_search":false},"categories":[681],"tags":[2316,3147,3661,5042,1604,3142],"yoast_head":"\nLearning from Grenfell: architects still have much soul searching to do<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Richard Waite and Gino Spocchia take an in-depth look at the Grenfell Tower Inquiry report and assess what its ramifications could be for the profession\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/learning-from-grenfell\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Learning from Grenfell: architects still have much soul searching to do\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Richard Waite and Gino Spocchia take an in-depth look at the Grenfell Tower Inquiry report and assess what its ramifications could be for the profession\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/learning-from-grenfell\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"The Architects\u2019 Journal\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-09-24T07:20:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-09-24T08:22:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/cdn.rt.emap.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2024\/09\/20130626\/grenfell_web-1024x683.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1024\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"683\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Richard Waite\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@https:\/\/twitter.com\/waitey\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Richard Waite\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/learning-from-grenfell\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/learning-from-grenfell\",\"name\":\"Learning from Grenfell: architects still have much soul searching to do\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2024-09-24T07:20:59+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-09-24T08:22:42+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#\/schema\/person\/c098c74851864737ad4fa4e50861cf8c\"},\"description\":\"Richard Waite and Gino Spocchia take an in-depth look at the Grenfell Tower Inquiry report and assess what its ramifications could be for the profession\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/learning-from-grenfell#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/learning-from-grenfell\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/learning-from-grenfell#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Learning from Grenfell: architects still have much soul searching to do\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/\",\"name\":\"The Architects\u2019 Journal\",\"description\":\"Architecture News & Buildings\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#\/schema\/person\/c098c74851864737ad4fa4e50861cf8c\",\"name\":\"Richard Waite\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/6cbf1402fe078387b47481c6908418f8\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/878d48df5d368e765aebd777e26b5be3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/878d48df5d368e765aebd777e26b5be3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Richard Waite\"},\"description\":\"Richard Waite is news editor of the Architects' Journal\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/https:\/\/twitter.com\/waitey\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/author\/richard-waite\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Learning from Grenfell: architects still have much soul searching to do","description":"Richard Waite and Gino Spocchia take an in-depth look at the Grenfell Tower Inquiry report and assess what its ramifications could be for the profession","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/learning-from-grenfell","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Learning from Grenfell: architects still have much soul searching to do","og_description":"Richard Waite and Gino Spocchia take an in-depth look at the Grenfell Tower Inquiry report and assess what its ramifications could be for the profession","og_url":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/learning-from-grenfell","og_site_name":"The Architects\u2019 Journal","article_published_time":"2024-09-24T07:20:59+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-09-24T08:22:42+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1024,"height":683,"url":"https:\/\/cdn.rt.emap.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2024\/09\/20130626\/grenfell_web-1024x683.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Richard Waite","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@https:\/\/twitter.com\/waitey","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Richard Waite","Estimated reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/learning-from-grenfell","url":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/learning-from-grenfell","name":"Learning from Grenfell: architects still have much soul searching to do","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#website"},"datePublished":"2024-09-24T07:20:59+00:00","dateModified":"2024-09-24T08:22:42+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#\/schema\/person\/c098c74851864737ad4fa4e50861cf8c"},"description":"Richard Waite and Gino Spocchia take an in-depth look at the Grenfell Tower Inquiry report and assess what its ramifications could be for the profession","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/learning-from-grenfell#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/learning-from-grenfell"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/learning-from-grenfell#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Learning from Grenfell: architects still have much soul searching to do"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/","name":"The Architects\u2019 Journal","description":"Architecture News & Buildings","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#\/schema\/person\/c098c74851864737ad4fa4e50861cf8c","name":"Richard Waite","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/6cbf1402fe078387b47481c6908418f8","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/878d48df5d368e765aebd777e26b5be3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/878d48df5d368e765aebd777e26b5be3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Richard Waite"},"description":"Richard Waite is news editor of the Architects' Journal","sameAs":["https:\/\/twitter.com\/https:\/\/twitter.com\/waitey"],"url":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/author\/richard-waite"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/756826"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/915"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=756826"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/756826\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":757255,"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/756826\/revisions\/757255"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/756846"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=756826"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=756826"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=756826"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}