Land and money still conquer all

Open House weekend demonstrates nicely how very little space in cities is actually open to the public. And the eviction of the Occupy movement from all of its sites demonstrates the power of land ownership rights above all else.

I actually designed a building for Occupy at Finsbury Square, but due to the high turnover of people the project never got built. Conversely, two things that are solid and permanent are land and money, therefore architects (who all presumably want to work — not just for money, but because it is what we trained to do) must doggedly follow these commodities.

The fact that we are merely window-dressing a predetermined massing model is the inevitable consequence of land law in this country. Even the recent government self-build funding relied on applicants to own the land to be developed, ruling out 99.9% of the people who would pursue it.

The only solutions that will make a difference to the role of the architect will happen outside the profession, and perhaps that is the best place for people who care — Wigglesworth included — to aim.

Oli Lowrie
via bdonline

The social conscience should be engaged at an academic level

I completely agree with Sarah Wigglesworth, especially that architects should take control with a political/socio-environmental agenda rather than the self-interested one that is pandemic.

However, it is a fallacy to suggest that architects are trained with an expansive vision, given how easy it is for almost anyone who can read and write to qualify at parts I, II and III level!

I believe engaging a social conscience should begin at an academic level, whereby qualifying in architecture is made difficult without a clear understanding that only a positive impact on civic space is to be practised.

Dipun Gandhi
via bdonline