As the long-awaited final report from the public inquiry into the Grenfell Tower fire is published, Nat Barker reflects on the role of the lead architect on the building’s notorious refurbishment project.
And so we come to the end. I watched hundreds of hours of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry. Among the dozens of witnesses I saw give evidence, the one I still think about most is Bruce Sounes.
Sounes was the lead architect on the fateful refurbishment project that effectively turned the tower into a death trap. He gave evidence right at the beginning of phase two, four-and-a-half years ago now.
Decisions he had made, emails he had sent several years prior, were scrutinised in forensic detail
It was hard going. The cross-examination was highly technical, digging into every minutiae of Sounes’s involvement in the refurbishment. Over six days of hearings – significantly more than most witnesses – decisions he had made, emails he had sent several years prior, were scrutinised in forensic detail.
It all seemed too much for Sounes. Sitting in the witness box, his voice faltered frequently, his boyish features twisted and tremored. Proceedings twice had to be halted because he was “taken ill” – and all of us in the room had an idea what that meant.
Sounes’s position was that he had no idea about how dangerous the cladding installed on Grenfell Tower was. He claimed that he understood this aspect of the project to fall under the purview of the cladding sub-contractor, Harley Facades, and that compliance with building regulations would be established by building control.
Whether or not we believe that – whether or not Sounes himself believes it – it was abundantly clear: he was traumatised by the disaster.
I do not for a second mean to equate Sounes’s suffering with that of the people unfortunate enough to have been inside Grenfell Tower on that dreadful night, or their loved ones.
I think also of Marcio Gomes, who plunged through thick black smoke for 35 minutes as he tried to escape the tower, believing the family he had been separated from in the terrifying darkness were all dead. His baby son, Logan, was the youngest victim of the fire before he even took his first breath. He was stillborn in hospital shortly afterwards.
It is not often you see an ordinary person struggling to live with themself
I think of Nabil Choucair, who lost six members of his family. I think of the little girl who lived in flat 175, who lost literally everything in the fire: her mum, her dad, and her two sisters. She was six years old, and will now be about 13.
I think too of the aspiring young architects Gloria Trevisan and Marco Gottardi, trapped in their flat together on the 23rd floor having moved to London from Italy only a few months before. Trevisan ended a call home shortly before she died so that her mother would not have to listen.
Their stories are just a snapshot of the unbelievable, unhealable pain caused by that fire.
But, still, for some reason, time and time again my mind returns to Sounes and the haunted figure he cut as he answered the inquiry’s questions. It is not often you see an ordinary person struggling to live with themself.
There are few surprises in the mammoth report published today. The strength of the language it uses to describe the architect’s role in the disaster is perhaps its most remarkable aspect.
Studio E, the firm that employed Sounes, “bears a very significant degree of responsibility for the disaster”, the report said. This is more damning terminology than I have seen applied to any other participant. In the hierarchy of blame, the inquiry apparently considers the architects to be very near the top.
My own personal opinion is that Sounes displayed a startling lack of knowledge and curiosity about building regulations and fire safety, but may have had more of an inkling than he let on; his first instinct when looking for an insulation product was to reach for non-combustible mineral wool. Asked why, he replied: “It’s the safest.”
Criminal charges, with prison sentences for the convicted, are generally believed to be likely
Sounes wanted the refurbishment to be a success, but seems to have only really thought about the criteria that he personally was interested in: how it looked, and whether it improved thermal efficiency. Everything else, he was content to leave to someone else.
In the context of what happened, some may consider that to be unforgivable. Others may recognise it as behaviour they themselves tend towards. Regardless, among all the people who worked on the refurbishment called to give evidence to the inquiry across 80 weeks of hearings, Sounes was the most visibly affected.
It is not clear what the future holds for him now. A police investigation into the fire is ongoing, and criminal charges, with prison sentences for the convicted, are generally believed to be likely.
Will Sounes be among those individuals? I don’t know. Either way, the eerie shadow of Grenfell Tower’s burnt-out husk will follow him forever.
Architects must, of course, pay close attention to the inquiry’s findings and recommendations beyond the news headlines that will emerge over the next 24 hours. In particular, its conclusion that Studio E was responsible for ensuring that the cladding complied with building regulations and not the contractor, or the specialist sub-contractor, or building control, may be an alarming wake-up call.
But they should also think about Sounes. Think about him working on that project, and him on the witness stand several years later, barely able to come to terms with his role in one of the worst peacetime disasters in modern British history.
Try to feel what Sounes must feel today
Let’s be honest, lengthy reports – even ones as important as this – can be difficult to engage with emotionally. You may know what it says, but do you feel it?
Well, try to feel what Sounes must feel today. Try to imagine what it would be like to work on a project, and later have to live with the fact that it turned out to cause even a fraction of the anguish caused by the Grenfell Tower fire. If that does not motivate you to learn whatever lessons are relevant to you from this disaster, I doubt anything will.
As we sift through the 1,700 pages of the phase two report in the coming days, the stories of Gomes, and Choucair, and Trevisan and Gottardi, and the little girl from flat 175, and everyone else affected who is still waiting for justice, and will have to wait for some time longer, should never leave our minds. I wonder if they ever leave Sounes’s.
Nat Barker is features editor at Dezeen.
The photo is courtesy of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.
Dezeen In Depth
If you enjoy reading Dezeen’s interviews, opinions and features, subscribe to Dezeen In Depth. Sent on the last Friday of each month, this newsletter provides a single place to read about the design and architecture stories behind the headlines.
