Comments - Page 3
I have to agree with Ken Gow. 'Ghosts of the Underground' is a terrific shot.
I don't think it's local democracy that is going to be the problem, it will be the courts. There are many areas where the anti-development lobby is both well off and more than happy to legally challenge planning decisions on minor points of process.
With such a vague and ill considered peice of legislation as the localism bill I fully expect the planning system to fall apart completely under a deluge of legal challenges, both from NIMBYs and developers in the first few years of this bill's life.
Where all of the local authorities work within the same legal system it's hard to see how they can offer radically different 'local' policies without challenge. Until that framework is established in more detail it's going to be a very bumpy ride indeed.
I'd agree that there's too much carping in the comments but then, it's easier to carp. However the examples in this piece are the wrong ones.
The Space standards campaign, and the way it was handled WAS inept and misguided. Indeed the fall out from it which was reported on these pages justified much of the criticism in the comments.
Highly apropriate in my opinion. The plastic shiny curvaceous forms echo the sanitaryware on sale there and the light fittings are very much like elongated toilet seats.
I hope those fins are VERY robust at ground level.
Very nice work. With the 'trees' providing a bit of surprising playfulness to soften the otherwise rigid geometry.
Makovecz's work was unique and engaging. It's always sad when our increasingly uniform world loses one of it's true individuals.
I'd agree wholeheatredly with the idea of transferring at risk buildings to local development trusts, however there needs to be better mechanisms for both transferring those assets away from thier owners and funding that process. CPOs are too difficult and HLF won't fund without ownership, or the realistic prospect of ownership. This leaves many properties local groups could save in limbo and rotting away.
This is a great example of the way it seems to be fine to build massively high next to the Canal and blot out all light, which will ultimately make the towpath, which is a major amenity space for London, opressive and unpleasant.
Right on the money, Alun Nicholas. The builders shoe horning en-suites into previously adequate housetypes while keeping the GIA the same has exacerbated the problem massively over recent years.
@James Francis, read my comment again.
I've worked in the sector and god knows been involved in developments for most of the major housebuilders in my time. It should be pretty clear that I'm not attacking the practices who work on developer residential schemes, but the RIBA.
The issue is that RIBA need to think a bit harder how they pick a fight like this. The world is not very architect freindly at the moment and it would be very easy for a journalist with even a little knowlege to highlight the obvious inconsistency in the RIBA starting a major political campaign against what is bread and butter work for many RIBA chartered practices.
This is a welcome move from the RIBA, who should promote good standards and best practice. Unfortunateley, many of the RIBA's members and chartered practices derive a great deal of income from getting these 'shameful shoeboxes' through planning.
So will they name and shame chartered practices who have helped deliver these shameful homes, or remain open to charges of hypocrasy?
I think a Hoxton offshoot is a great way to get cool, funky architecture & design over to the wider public, particularly the hen party market which seems to have discovered the area's bars...
Hmm, a bit dull. Do we think ZHA have 'jumped the shark' Architecturally? Love or loathe her, they have been an interesting practice over the years, yet this could be by any one of the world's mega-firms.
Almost every comment on this thread is ridiculous, irrelevant. Particularly Robert Adam's, point about Traditional design being banned. In many cases all design is banned, apart from contractor design.
The reason being that so many architects of all styles are incapable of designing buildings that work, on even a basic level.
Excellent, these new style hospitals can be delivered on retail parks to be sold as service alongside Tesco and B&Q!
Surely most of the blame lies with Wilkinson Eyre...
"In particular, he singled out a greater role for standardisation of design which he said would be a way of limiting the opportunity for error."
Or enshrine any errors in the generic model?
@ Soup Dragon
Dead wrong about architects' involvement in Mass housing. Many, many architects are make a living producing masterplans and exterior wallpaper for Barratts/Crest/Taylor Wimpey et al. There are also quite few of us working for contractors who build the stuff.
Marvellous, I look forward to no longer having to provide accredited details, SAP calcs and negotiate through all the red tape that has been placed in the way of housebuilding in recent years. As I'm sure major retaillers will be much more effective in lobbying government to ensure the ground rules don't change every 3 months...
Or maybe they'll look at the regulatory framework and the ongoing commitments to change and think, hang on we'll have to redesign our standard flatpacks every couple of years and say "thanks, but no thanks".