What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

  1. The article in the Post about Scarano is a little misleading. Don’t get me wrong -as an architect, guys like Scarano give us all a bad name and I think his work sucks. But the architect is not responsible for what goes on at a construction site -the contractor is. The Post article was incorrect to say that Scarano was issued a fine or a stop-work order, in fact it was the contractor that was fined. In addition, the architect is not always responsible for which contractor the owner hires. We can make a recommendation and determine a bidders list, but ultimately the owner hires the contractor and has a contract with them directly. The architect does not have a contract with the contractor and only functions as a representative of the owner in dealing with the contractor.

    However, since so many of Scarano’s projects have problems he may be knowingly recommending slip-shod contractors to the owners, which is professional negligence.

  2. What’s up with all the indignation? It’s the freaking STYLE section of the NY Times. I don’t think it that section is meant to be approached with a critical eye to the journalistic prowess of its contributors or the topics they cover. In fact, I sometimes think that section is like an on-giong joke; it seems to intentionally piss people off with its vapidness.

    Can anyone identify any other articles from that section this weekend that are marked by journalistic integrity or seriousness and import of content?

    Sheesh. Take it easy.