Report comment

As much as I share Rogers' well placed concerns, it's statements like "Architecture...has to be judged by those who are qualified to judge it just like with music and literature" that rubs people the wrong way. Who is the best judge of music? A specialist??? Really?? Who is the best judge of a book?There is always a disconnect between what the profession sees as good and what the public sees as good. The architecture profession in the UK is spending entirely too much to forward its agenda. The design of new shopping centers and business plazas need not be a billion pounds investment in design and layers of beurocracy. A great idea costs hardly anything- and it's the apparent lack of his ability to acknowledge this which is so frustrating.
The liberals believe that architecure (and other aspects of the public sphere) are enhanced simply by throwing money at it.
The more the better. This need not be. CABE has not guaranteed a quality built environment better than what starry eyed planning commissions without training could conceive of in the 1960s. Take a look at your year's Carbuncle cup to see some of the terrible works that have resulted. It costs nothing to recognize talent, and it's time to pull yourselves up and envision a better public arena with better ideas with less piles of cash. And sometimes less government spending in this area can also save some endangered old buildings by accident of a halt in redevelopment schemes. Rogers is clearly speaking more with concerns of self-preservation, than on any fears that a drop in public spending will somehow prevent good architecture from being realized. Again, the lesson of the 1960s shown that huge public spending did not necessarily
create sustainable built environments- much of it was knocked down in just 20 years. Your oppurtunities now lay almost solely with the private sector, which truly has much more muscle when it comes to money and resources.