Report comment

re we as a profession to allow this injustice? The restiction is totally unreasonable and unacceptable. I have sat and watched in wonder at the various events and the skill and expertise of those responsible for being part of such success particularly at the architects contribution at producing these imaginative facilities that work on time withijn budget. The remoteness from the promotion interests of the sponsors of the overall Olympics would make the ban unenforcable in law if indeed they would risk the bad publicity that would stem from that action. They have already accepted that degree or remoteness is applicable. Talking is not working and will go on without results until the so called ban expires. The unfairness is obious and should be challengedin a way it will be widely ventilated in all the media. It would be a story they could not resist. It may be difficult for some of the architects involved to risk this as some may be seen to be in breech of contract.
The RIBA is not in that situation. They should publish immediately a complete list of the architects involved in the various Olympic facilities and get this publicised as widely as possible. One way they could do this would be to announce very publically a public competition for thedesin of the most outstanding buildings in various catagories asking the public - particularly those who have attended the Olympic events to vote for the best in the various catagories. The media will run with this and I doudt if any of the sponsors would risk bad pblicity in challenging this and taking action against the RIBA. They sponsor to get goodwill not the opposite.
Owen Luder CBE PPRIBA