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.


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.




I have subscribed to the AJ for many years and have, until the recent revamp, found it an invaluable, informative and interesting publication. I am, however, very disappointed by the changes of the redesign, particularly with the quality of the photography, which has fallen dramatically.

The building being photographed now seems to be of secondary importance to the photographer's personal taste and a need to have 'arty' photos in his or her portfolio. While I appreciate that the context of buildings is of great importance and is difficult to show in a photograph, your photographers seem obsessed with foreground.

A good example of this tendency is the half-page photograph of the Lee Valley Athletics Centre (page 23 of the Building Study, AJ 08.02.07). It is basically a photograph of a red running track, with the building in question barely visible in the far distance. The images on the following page are even worse.

These are neither good photographs nor are they informative, just a waste of space in the magazine. There is also a tendency to photograph the people on judging panels rather than the building being judged. This is not what is interesting to architects.

I had hoped that things would improve after the changes had had time to bed-in properly, but this has not been the case.

I regret to say that I will not be renewing my subscription unless things change dramatically.

Stephen Jowitt, GMA Architecture

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment.

The searchable digital buildings archive with drawings from more than 1,500 projects

AJ newsletters