Sharmin Rahman on Rethinking Responsibility after Grenfell – a response to ‘Professional Buck-passers’ (2024)

As a second-year architecture student at the time, watching the events of the Grenfell Tower fire unfold on a small screen was deeply unsettling. I remember the faces of onlookers, the scale of the flames, and the sense of disbelief as the situation escalated. In the days that followed, attention quickly turned to assigning responsibility, as local authorities, designers, manufacturers and contractors sought to explain their roles.

The publication of Phase 2 of the Grenfell Inquiry in 2024 prompted renewed debate, including critiques of the architectural profession. Writing in The Guardian, Oliver Wainwright argued that architectural education requires significant reform, suggesting a greater emphasis on technical competence. While there is merit in reflecting on how architects are trained, it’s clear from the inquiry that the failures leading to Grenfell were not confined to a single profession.

It’s widely acknowledged that Studio E Architects, responsible for the refurbishment design, fell short in several areas, including compliance and coordination. However, to position architects as the primary “professional actor” responsible for the tragedy risks oversimplifying a far more complex reality. Architects must, of course, maintain a robust understanding of building regulations, fire safety, and technical design to ensure that safe and inclusive buildings are conceived from the outset. Yet this responsibility sits within a broader matrix of roles, where specialist consultants, contractors, regulators and clients all play critical parts in decision-making and delivery.

There is also an apparent contradiction in expecting architects to assume greater responsibility, while simultaneously criticising reliance on specialist expertise. In practice, the involvement of fire engineers, building control professionals, and other consultants is essential – not optional. Effective design depends on coordinated input, and accountability must be understood as shared, rather than isolated.

The critique of architectural education warrants careful consideration. Describing it as overly focused on visual representation overlooks the value of theoretical and conceptual training, which underpins thoughtful & responsive design. In recent years, organisations like RIBA have begun reviewing curricula to better reflect the realities of practice, including the increasing importance of technical competence and regulatory understanding. However, it is neither realistic nor desirable for architectural education alone to encompass the full complexity of professional practice. As with many disciplines, core knowledge is developed in education, while applied competence is strengthened through practice and experience.

Importantly, the trajectory of the profession has already shifted significantly since 2017. Legislative and regulatory reforms – including the Building Safety Act 2022 – have introduced new duties/roles and accountability frameworks across the industry. These changes reflect a broader recognition that systemic reform, rather than isolated professional critique, is required.

However, a critical dimension remains under-explored: the role of culture and class. The inquiry highlights technical and procedural failings, but gives comparatively less attention to the social conditions that allowed these failures to occur. Residents had raised concerns about the building for years prior to the fire, yet these warnings were not acted upon with the urgency they demanded. This points to deeper issues of power, representation, and inequality within housing systems.

As noted by RIBA Chair Jack Pringle, the failures that led to Grenfell were “system-wide, with myriad contributing factors.” This includes not only professional shortcomings, but also regulatory decisions, procurement practices, and a broader context in which cost, expediency, and deregulation were prioritised over safety. The use of combustible materials on high-rise buildings, enabled through regulatory gaps, is one such example.

Ultimately, the Grenfell tragedy cannot be understood through the lens of a single profession. While it is essential to scrutinise the role of architects – and to continue improving education and competence – it is equally important to recognise the wider systems that shape outcomes. This includes political, economic, and social frameworks that influence how buildings are designed, procured, and inhabited.

To move forward meaningfully, the conversation must extend beyond professional blame. It should address the underlying structures that allowed such a tragedy to occur, including the persistent inequalities faced by those in social housing. Without this broader reflection, there is a risk that the lessons of Grenfell will be only partially learned.