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.




As one of the 40 Under 40 in 1985, it was interesting to observe the lack of diversity in the current selection. The 2005 40 is a 'right-on' collection of mainstream Moderns of a kind beloved by elderly professionals, but not much loved by anyone else (see Mary Hotham's letter (AJ 02.06.05)). In 1985 there were several traditional architects, today there are none. I know traditional architects made submissions this time, so why were none included?

It would be too easy (and simply incorrect) to say that they were rejected solely on the lack of quality. So what does this tell us? Firstly, the selection of the jury can produce predictable results. Secondly, it shows a growing intolerance at the top end of the profession (see also Rogers' intervention in Chelsea). Thirdly, it shows the conformity of many younger architects. It seems that the radical alternative is now in the popular traditions of the wider community, rather than the elitist traditions of Modernism.

Robert Adam, Robert Adam Architects, Winchester

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