Paul McGrath's Comments
Comment on: Sometimes you just don't know whether to laugh or cry
I am truely honoured that I have elicited a response! My intention was not to smear Mr Finch but to counteract what I see as a one-sided view that pretty much uncritically supports the conventional wisdom of politically powerful lobbies. Always it seems, at the expense of the margins and innovative thnking. I would not like to see the Berkeley Group and Crest Nicholson - even with their 'raised game' - to become the Government's unofficial housing advocate. If anyone is actually interested in the McGrath concept - which I very much doubt as I am just little people - Mr Finch is very welcome to visit some of the 'hovels' I have designed. Then perhaps a more balanced opinion would result. The McGrath concept also puts its money where its mouth is. By purchasing a small, difficult brownfield site and trying to develop it as a home I am contributing to solving the shortage of housing in London (however small that contribution might be) and not taliking about it or using it as a vehicle for personal acclaim. The practical difficulties of doing so are emense. Consequently I would welcome the chance to describe to Mr Finch how difficult it is to actually build an affordable, accessible single house in London bearing in mind that every step of the way someone says no; never mind the myriad number of third party demands infill developments are now forced to comply with by the planning system as if it were a major project before any development can even start securing development funding. All told, it is no wonder London has a deficit in housing supply. It is almost true that a high number of 'hovels' is politically better than a one off house. As every jobbing housing designer out their knows the bigger the project the less scrutiny the 'authorities' seem to place on them. Compare big housing association schemes with say small private domestic extensions; one has a relatviely easy passage the other seems to attract the entire gamut of rules, regulations and standards the Local Authority can throw at it and are put under totally disproportionate scrutiny. Yes the subject is too important to always adopt utilitarian solutions. The AJ's support of better homes should have the support of everyone.
Comment on: Sometimes you just don't know whether to laugh or cry
Paul Finch clearly moves in rarefied circles where mere morals are few and far between. To support the Berkeley Group and Crest Nicholson and denounce the lowest common denominators of the HBF is a clear bias in favour of the so-called great and the good. Commentator’s are acutely aware of which side their bread is buttered it would appear. If PF were a football commentator he’d only be interested in the Premiership and teams like Accrington Stanley wouldn’t get a look in. Rather than making regulations that maintain the dominance of the ‘big players’, rule makers should seek to encourage innovation and not stifle it at every opportunity. Minimum space standards are a case in point. Look at Japan and the ‘micro-homes’ movement; could that happen in the UK? Not if you follow the logic of Mr Finch it won’t. Is it just coincidence that with more and more regulation, less and less gets built? There is a certain irony that while LA’s are clamping down on illegal garden shed homes architects are suggesting garages could be converted into affordable homes. This suggests the priority is to get people housed in decent well-designed homes rather than arguing how big those homes should be or how energy efficient they are. Having read the Future Homes Commission report it is clear to me the future is with small innovative design led house-builders and not leviathan ‘market leaders’ like the big house builders.
Comment on: ‘Desperate’ Part I student advertises her labour on eBay
Once again the RIBA's commitment to Part 2's and below working in the profession is shown to be trivial. If the 'value' the RIBA attributes to a graduate is only the minimum wage, it effectively gives Chartered Practices (and by example, other practices) permission to exploit highly educated 'students' as a cheap labour source. The RIBA must address the increasing reality that a degree or post-graduate qualification in architecture is virtually worthless without registration. It's high time the RIBA started to think of Part 2 as a destination and not just a stepping stone to other things.
Comment on: ‘Desperate’ Part I student advertises her labour on eBay
Once again the RIBA's commitment to Part 2's and below working in the profession is shown to be trivial. If the 'value' the RIBA attributes to a graduate is only the minimum wage, it effectively gives Chartered Practices (and by example, other practices) permission to exploit highly educated 'students' as a cheap labour source. The RIBA must address the increasing reality that a degree or post-graduate qualification in architecture is virtually worthless without registration. It's high time the RIBA started to think of Part 2 as a destination and not just a stepping stone to other things.
Comment on: Industry reaction: ‘Never a good time’ for ARB fee hike
Describing the ARB as a 'statutory regulator' is wholly wrong. The UK Parliament requires of the ARB to keep a register, prescribe the qualifications needed to become an 'architect' and promote and maintain a code of professional conduct. It does not regulate anything. Its only purpose is to deliver the responsibilities given to it under the Architects Act. All these increasing peripheral 'costs' to being professional must be passed on to the consumer - at least to some extent - so how does this demonstrate to potential clients using an architect will keep fees competitive? In a small but significant way, cost increases like this only serve to put pressure on wage deflation.
Comment on: Tom Emerson criticises RIBA for educational divide
This is a classic example of the elite of the elite discussing amongst themselves how they could effect changes to the education of an architect without actually doing anything more than talking about doing so. All the arguments for and against are well known and understood; yet nothing changes. It seems the tripartite 'pipeline' is regarded as absolutely sacrosanct. Once registered, anyone seriously questioning it is considered a heretic and soon loses any serious ambitions to challenge the all to easily accepted and cozy orthodoxy. This is just another introverted and decadent academic debate going nowhere.
Comment on: The ARB should be abolished
If the ARB was to be abolished, what would replace it? That needs to be explained by Mr Finch as it is not clear whether he favours continuing the legal protection of the tile of "architect" or abandoning it. Or whether he is advocating the RIBA take over the role of competent authority for the purposes of the Directive and hold the 'register' presuming a register is actually necessary. If the logic is the ARB is abolished only for the RIBA to step in, I would support the original principle of the ARB and its total independence from the RIBA.
Comment on: Housing debate: What the UK needs now
Not one architect has addressed who meets the cost of raising the bar and increasing standards. Is that because they have no interest in keeping costs down and a vested interest in keeping costs high? It's either the purchaser or the Government that pays in the end and both seem to be treated as limitless sources of money. The clear backing amongst architects (and the propaganda cited in the exhibition) for the introduction of mandatory space standards (and increased costs which is ignored in the exhibition) seems solely based on developers making a profit from housing. If true this seems an ideological stance to adopt not an expedient one. Everyone recognises the aims are laudable but to be credible 'developers' cannot be blamed and vilified. After all, the majority of us want a bigger home to live in given the choice but not everyone can afford it.
Comment on: Housing debate: What the UK needs now
Not one architect has addressed who meets the cost of raising the bar and increasing standards. Is that because they have no interest in keeping costs down and a vested interest in keeping costs high? It's either the purchaser or the Government that pays in the end and both seem to be treated as limitless sources of money. The clear backing amongst architects (and the propaganda cited in the exhibition) for the introduction of mandatory space standards (and increased costs which is ignored in the exhibition) seems solely based on developers making a profit from housing. If true this seems an ideological stance to adopt not an expedient one. Everyone recognises the aims are laudable but to be credible 'developers' cannot be blamed and vilified. After all, the majority of us want a bigger home to live in given the choice but not everyone can afford it.
Comment on: UCAS applications for architecture plummet 16 per cent
I would guess the drop in numbers is more than compensated by the increase in revenue. So the Schools of Architecture maybe better off financially! It's a great shame that social mobility via education is now in retreat and that higher education institutions are becoming more and more businesslike.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Access over 100 years of projects
