[patch_collector]

This is anecdotal, but back when I was working in architecture (10ish years ago), I visited the principal of our Chinese sister firm in Beijing, and we walked around and talked about his experience as a native Chinese architect with experience working in the US.

His greatest frustration was the lack of quality in the finished buildings he'd design. As he put it, the designs that Chinese firms were putting out were just as high quality as anything in the rest of the world, but the end result was always worse. It was largely procedural -- in the US, the architect is involved not only during the initial design phases, but throughout the project, and is responsible approving any changes and for certifying that the result matches the intent. In China, that's not the case -- they make a design, bundle it up, and then hand everything over the contractor. The contractor then makes whatever changes they want during the construction process, without any input from the architects. This means materials may get changed, the wrong construction methods may be used, etc, and no-one knows. From a distance, the building will look amazing, but the details will have been skimped on.

[clairity]

not keeping architects in the loop doesn't sound like that big of a problem, if it just affects the quality of the finish as noted. it'd be much more concerning if engineers weren't signing off on construction changes (which can happen here in the US, even with our bloated procedures).

[patch_collector]

The Architect of Record isn't just signing off on paint colors and finish quality, but on things like the seals around windows, flashing on roofing elements, fireproofing on the structural elements, and many more aspects of the building process. In the US, the vast majority of lawsuits around buildings are due to water infiltration, which is affected by these sorts of issues. The building may not collapse if the architect isn't reviewing it, but the walls and roof might.

That said, I'm not certain that engineers are in a different situation. Judging by videos I've seen of collapsing buildings and other issues, I wouldn't be surprised if structural, electrical, plumbing, and other engineers also hand over their designs in the beginning, and then leave it to the developer / contractor to interpret them and 'value-engineer' as they see fit.

[clairity]

i think my critique is more about the idea the process differences have led to materially different outcomes between chinese and american building projects. i've seen some projects in my neighborhood being made with cheap materials and relatively unskilled labor, that lead to water issues too. i spent 9 months with habitat for humanity building an apartment complex and was surprised at how tolerant the process was to completely inexperienced volunteers showing up for a couple hours and doing all kinds of shoddy work.

when i visited beijing about 10 years ago, i was astonished at how much construction was going on, and i could see that the sheer amount of construction happening would make it seem like there were more issues than here in the US. without more concrete data, i'd be skeptical of that kind of anecdote simply playing into our own biases.

[patch_collector]

Let me explain a bit more of the procedures, and it may explain why I think this is at least one factor (though I agree that more buildings also means there will be more shoddy buildings in absolute terms, even if the percentage of shoddy buildings stays the same).

In the US architectural process, an architect specifies a particular material (say a roof sealant) that has certain characteristics. During construction, the contractor will look at the material, check its price, and then use their suppliers to see what the best available deal is. The contractor identifies another roof sealant that's half the price. Because they've bid on the project for a fixed price, if they can use that other product and cut their costs, they'll increase their profit margin. So they put in a change request and submit the new product with its data. The architect may review it, see that it is functionally the same as their specified product, and approve it. Or they may look at it and determine that while they're both roof sealants, the specified one has a 10 year lifespan, and the proposed alternate has a 2 year lifespan. They reject it, and the builder uses the specified material.

Without the architect verifying that the material is comparable, the contractor (intentionally or not) will use a lower-quality material that will lessen the quality of the building, because there are no checks in place.

[clairity]

what you're saying makes sense (that this process difference could lead to differences in outcome) but i'd still hesitate against extrapolating to industry-wide conclusions from it. there may be other ways that checks & balanaces are incorporated into the chinese system that we're not seeing or hearing about. and you could as easily flip it around and note how amazing it is that there are so few extra buildings being reported as exhibiting problems despite this missing review process. without survey data, it's hard to know for sure how impactful the review process is (relative to cost in both time and money).