I keep reading about this event. I find comments like this in the press:
the need for adequate training, protection and investment "in the restoration of works of art in Spain is revealed.
As I said yesterday, those rules already exist.
My more detailed answer to it:
In Spain, when you want to do any kind of work in a building, whether it is outside or inside, you have to obtain a building permit. Only for certain very minor works it may not be necessary. If it is for works outside, for works on the structure, or inside, a project signed by an architect and stamped by the association of architects of the region is necessary.
This project has to be presented to the corresponding town hall, the architect of the town hall studies it, approves it and delivers it to the mayor, who signs and accepts it. Then the work rights are paid, which are a percentage of the total estimated cost of the work. Then the works are made, according to the project presented and with the modifications that may be presented in the development of the works. Once completed, an end of work document is presented.
The architect of the town hall then has to go to the work, check that everything has been done as authorized and following the initial project, and according to the declared end of works. Then he signs a document declaring the work in accordance with the initial project and in which everything is correctly carried out.
.
It is evident that the architect of the city council of Palencia, who had in his hands some type of project, of some type of work, did not review the work.
And this is where the part that seems most unfair to me is: the municipal architect and the Palencia city council support each other, free themselves from responsibilities, blame a supposed restorer who does not exist, since the work was done by some company of works and the artistic disaster was surely irresponsibly carried out by a bricklayer.
Why does the City Council of Palencia disappear in the whole process of the work?
Another aspect of the problem is that this figure is outside, at a certain height, and someone had to be working at the risk of a fall, with what this implies.
Here there may also be a responsibility of the city council and the architect. Did they allow that work to be done in that figure, without a project and without security measures ...?
Possibly, in my opinion, the city council and the architect committed irregularities, and both the bank that owns part of the building and the other owners, thought about the possibility of requesting a smaller, simpler, cheaper building license ... because at the after all "nothing ever happens" ...
news.artnet.com
I like it.
