-
-
Most Read
Comments
Resource
Junkie
Advertisement
Advertisement
McCloud: No chaos at Hab
15 August 2008
I am writing to correct some of the points made in your news article and editorial about Hab Oakus LLP (News August 8).
Hab and Hab Oakus are not in the business of getting architects to work for free or for next to nothing. We are investing 10% of a £19 million budget on consultants, including eminent landscape architect Studio Engleback and environmental engineer Max Fordham. Had Wright & Wright continued on the project it would have earned what any design-led practice would have earned on any comparable housing scheme. We know that because we know the handful of other developers working in this area — and what they pay.
As to design work carried out so far, Wright & Wright was brought onto the project last year, was engaged for work up to Stage C and has been paid for that work.
We parted ways over one major issue: whether Wright & Wright was the appropriate practice to help us take the project forward. In 2008, Hab formed a partnership with Westlea Housing Association which is part of the housing group GreenSquare. Within the new partnership it became increasingly difficult to see a fit with Wright & Wright as project architect.
Hab Oakus has the backing of a major housing group that owns and manages nearly 10,000 homes and is very strong financially. Moreover, as is normal with this type of project, early pre-planning work is carried out at the developer’s risk. Hab, and subsequently Hab Oakus, committed to paying for all work up to Stage C. Our newly shortlisted practices stated that they would much prefer to restart architectural design from scratch. There was consequently no need for any further copyright licence from Wright & Wright.
We’re very excited to be working with an architect of Glenn Howells’ stature, happy to be paying him, and absolutely delighted with the way the project is progressing.
Kevin McCloud, Happiness Architecture Beauty
 Get the latest stories first with BD newsletters. Click to signup |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We want to hear from you
You can be as critical or controversial as you like, but please don't get personal or offensive, and do keep it brief and relevant. Remember this is for feedback and constructive discussion!
Comments may be edited if they do not meet these guidelines.
Readers' comments
If the client chooses to terminate an architects services and engage a business more suited to their objectives, then that is their right. If the original architect is paid, as seems to be the case here, and his copyright is respected then I don't see that there are any issues apart from the opportunity that has been lost.