By continuing to use the site you agree to our Privacy & Cookies policy

Your browser seems to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser.

Close

Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Close

Fidel Meraz

Fidel Meraz

Recent activity

Comments (8)

  • Comment on: Emmott: 'Londoners overwhelmingly want the Garden Bridge'

    Fidel Meraz's comment 29-Jul-2015 12:13 pm

    ...Ian Ritchie's discussion on this issue is among the most eloquent I have read. The present text instead is not much more than PR rhetoric and as misleading as it seems to be the way the survey was designed. Less top-down imposition and more public participation and professional commitment for better cities behind big decisions are urgently needed...

  • Comment on: Expert slams Garden Bridge business case

    Fidel Meraz's comment 15-Jun-2015 11:45 am

    I agree with the argument of non-mutual exclusivity. I am just trying to understand the origins of the perceptions that an irritated part of the public and several within the architectural disciplines have. It might be worth linking to this discussion the other article by Colin Marrs here in the AJ about the perception of architects as the ones people can still talk to and be prepared to listen. I insist that architects and politicians have the ethical obligation of working together. Passion and commitment are things possibly good in themselves. However when they are focused on an initiative to build a huge bridge, with supposedly "new public” space (that ultimately may end up not being very public in reality) to link the two shores of the Thames but not for car, bus, tram, train or even bicycle traffic, they may be perceived as passion and commitment of the fewer for the benefit of the few. I would not argue for stopping things happening per se, but it depends what things we talk about. And I would like to imagine bridges as ways to link, join, unite, connect, etc. This is not a private project proposed for private land. This seems like an initiative to build on no-land a made up semi-private space with the alibi of bringing more public space and inheriting a big debt to society if things go the wrong way. Or so the project might be perceived. I would argue that we do not need the same passion for the bridge than for housing production, we need much more for housing than for "starchitecture". The housing problem is a complex one but it is one among others British society needs to tackle to reduce inequality as a matter of urgency. Now that one is a bridge I would feel passionate about.

  • Comment on: Expert slams Garden Bridge business case

    Fidel Meraz's comment 12-Jun-2015 9:52 am

    Another dreary litany from the miserablist tendency? Maybe. But misery is the inequality London is trying to hide and may keep hiding behind these and other extravagant projects. If at least they were not that expensive, that would be a real display of creativity. Architects and politicians together, can you offer dignified housing and public space for the people first? Without this project London is already an exceptionally good showcase of Britain. Litanies may eventually emerge from understandable reasons.

  • Comment on: London skyline being built by 'dirty Russian money' says Rees

    Fidel Meraz's comment 2-Jun-2014 10:04 am

    ...I guess buildings working as deposit boxes can store any money, dirty or clean one. It does not need to be Russian. And the fact that the money is stored in the UK speaks about the state of its society allowing this to happen as much as the developers and investors. First we let money to become the absolute god and then we do not want to be dominated by it. You cannot having it both ways. It may be more complex, I know...

  • Comment on: Last chance to fill out the survey: Should the title of architect be protected?

    Fidel Meraz's comment 7-Mar-2014 4:08 pm

    ...using the title of architect to sell professional services should be legally framed and regulated. However, the right to use the word architect attached to one's name as a title gained studying and legitimised working as a professional in a different country should also be granted. One should have the right to be called architect even when one is not legally allowed to sell professional services that are limited by the UK law. The way in which sometimes the RIBA or the ARB approach the title looks as if somehow a word could have been privatised. Also, architecture is older than architects. Certain forms of adapting, extending and self building, among others, could be allowed as a right to make one's place in the world. In particular when access to affordable architecture is sometimes impossible for people economically challenged. Controversial I know...

View all comments