Could the AJ please clarify just who (if anybody) at what is presumably one of the biggest and most succesful practices in history was getting less than the living wage? If this is a commitment to paying support staff and workers such as cleaners then its a great commitment. If this relates to any level of qualified professional staff then it's of some serious concern.
Have never been to the area but is it essentially an area of large traditional fairly densely packed terraces with little or no off street parking? Presumably in such an area very large basements can allow the movement of living space underground and allow the potential to then convert the ground floor to bedrooms, potentially increasing the number of occupants and quite possibly the number of vehicles looking to park in the area? Bigger houses with more space and potentially more occupants could potentially put more strain on every aspect of the area infrastructure, drains, utility supply e.t.c. Or am I making too much of the word 'potentially'?
Ah yes, the conservative policy formation of 'my mate/dad/campaign funder' reckons what we need is.......less immigrants/lower wages/less rules for employers/ less benefits e.t.c.
Wouldn't it be better to spend the money bringing other cities up to London's level of infrastructure and provide an alternative for businesses and opportunities to locate in other parts of the country? If more money is spent in London it will just make the problem worse as more business will concentrate their, more people will be desperate to live there and the problem will just continue to get worse.
Comment on: Jane Duncan: The nine per cent president
Do most RIBA members really care who is the president or what the institute is up to or do most members just want the four letters for marketing purposes?