Robert Wakeham's comments
I first saw a door dressed up as brick or tilework in the base of Stirling and Gowan's Leicester Engineering Building - exotic, but it made good sense in preserving the apparently solid mass of the building's base
Over the years the desire to hide not only doors but structural support over openings behind a brick or tile skin seems to have become a fashion and sometimes just a fad. Is it now a gimmick?
I dream of a day when destroyed artefacts - however large - can be re-created in situ as holograms, and so without disturbance to the post-destruction scene. Memories of Sci Fi films, I think - but maybe technically possible?
Scottish Power Renewables obtained the main consent for a ten turbine tide stream array in the fast flowing Sound of Islay, between Islay and Jura, five years ago - but there seems to be no progress with this demonstration project, and all it does is demonstrate the disarray in some of the new energy infrastructure management in this country.
Is this a higher priority than introducing legislation to render this country Boris-proof, before it becomes a joke democracy?
Slightly twisting the thing, rubik's cube style, doesn't turn it into architecture.
Richard Rogers is absolutely right on one count - on the importance of this scheme - but it's important for reasons that he seems not to comprehend.
For one of the most talented architects of his time to be fighting for a scheme born of a blatantly corrupted procurement process makes me wonder where his priorities lie, to put it politely.
How would he like to have been one of the architects invited to bid for the bridge, and who were seemingly unwitting participants in an outright fiddle?
The one feature of this saga that seems as odd as Mr Rogers' behaviour (and that of the TfL auditor) is the apparent silence from the experienced bridge designers whose track records were found to have been trashed.
If TfL can corrupt their procurement process for this bridge design, what does it say for the quality of the rest of their procurement in recent years?
For Peter Bill (in his darkened room):
So how do you suppose the Mayor, and his TfL team, think that their collection of framework developers are going to act in the development of the spare public land fringing the surface routes of the underground network?
When the mayor of London quotes a TfL audit finding that the procurement process was 'open, fair and transparent' the honesty deficit has reached the point where sleaze in high office is taken for granted - but is it widely supported by Londoners, as well as the Conservative Party?
How about architects? - some of the great and the good have come out in support of the project, and the architects whose bridge experience was rubbished in the procurement scoring remain strangely silent - the power of TfL patronage? - it's surely not believable that they were willing parties in the 'stitch up'.
'Bold decisions and interventions' - and the people with the vision and commitment to identifying both the opportunities for London, and the pitfalls? - this surely involves political leadership with integrity, at all levels from town halls to central government, and not just a bunch of councils of questionable competence and a part-time mayor who's focussed on how to become prime minister of a government that seems to be less than keen on him.
Is it really baffling that the mayor isn't fighting these changes? The poor man's juggling his two day jobs with fighting to gather as much power as possible for our national politicians, earning a crust writing for the printed media - and (of course) looking after the interests of his developer friends in their struggles to get their own way against all sorts of spoilsports and idiots. So he's hardly likely to have the time or inclination to make life difficult for yet more developers - he's got far bigger fish to fry.