Architect Director, One-world design:
congratulations Debbie, some beautiful renderings
Comment on: Housing registrations plummet 12%
Fewer ‘ugly’ new homes perhaps? The problem with the ‘ugly’ issue is not in the design, it is in the procurement, tenure and brief. With the necessary raising of sustainability standards the issues of cost, quality and time are going to become even more challenging. All the ingredients of the solution to the housing shortfall and impending crisis are being lined up reasonably well by the current government but in a drip feed fashion. A key part of the solution is build-to-let. Pension funds have billions to invest for long term returns; therefore our design briefs will inherently have whole life cycle costing embedded within them rather than a short term view that arguably spec build developers have (for valid economic reasons). This will lead to prioritising good, durable and sustainable design which will need to maximise opportunities for renewables whilst minimising energy consumption. Buildings will inherently be more future proof because it will be in the interest of the landlord for them to be so. This means that we all have to accept that home ownership, at least for now, may no longer be the norm for the most people. A change in the way we view the housing market in the UK is what is required and It will take time for people to come round to the idea. The stigma of renting rather than home ownership needs to be washed aside for the benefit of all. In this day and age is seems fitting to shed antiquated ideas of Englishmen and castles and let what you do and who you are be a measure of your success rather than where you live and if you own your home.
maybe there are too many politicians?
Christianity is represented in all its forms in Liverpool, and with the cities obvious historic and cultural links to Ireland and Catholicism perhaps no city in the UK could claim to be any more Christian. However, is the use of such a powerful symbol suitable in anything other than a place of worship. It seems to me that the architect here just intends to shock and cause debate for the sake of it – which is of course fine – but ultimately the building is a commercial venture, not one of religion. There is nothing wrong with making money or some people having more than others, but the use of such a powerful symbol being associated with commerce is careless to say the least. If such a scheme achieved planning consent it would be a failure of the planning system and demonstrate a lack of understanding of the importance of symbolism in architecture and when it is appropriate to reference such symbols.