Industry Professional's Comments
Why are there no images of the interior?
Bring back Fielden Clegg
Comment on: Euston demolition plans dropped
Demolishing quite a chunk of London to the west of the station?.... no more St James Square
Comment on: Pritzker for Chipperfield?
David Adjaye?... seriously?... why?... for what?....
I am startled that you make such an incendiary claim of 'ethnic cleansing' showing a lack of knowledge of what this term means - ask anyone who lived through the Yugoslav wars and they will tell you that murder and torture were the order of the day not downsizing award payments (current borough average is £1500 flat payment in addition to £400 for each bedroom given up) nor moving payments to help with furniture removal. Nor the offer of a different property elsewhere. Nor were they given the opportunity to stay by paying a small contribution to their rent. Not forgetting that 'social housing tenant' is not an ethnicity! For example, in Essex the majority of social tenants are caucasian, in Tower Hamlets the majority are Bangladeshi.
Having worked for a social housing provider I have seen first hand the impact of under occupiers on those living in overcrowded accommodation. We had many households as follows: Parents living in a 3 bed house with no children. Both children on turning 18 received their own 1 bed social housing flats. So the need is for 3 bedrooms and they are occupying 5. We had many other households as follows: Parents sleep on sofa in lounge, 2 children share a bedroom. So the need is for 3 bedrooms and they have 1. You cannot consistenly build large accomodation and then have it stay with families when they separate. It just doesn't work in the long-term.
This government policy is about equalising provision of social housing with private housing. In other words, someone renting or owning in the private sector who has non-resident parents or wants a friend to stay has to make do - perhaps with a sofabed. If a private landlord wants to sell up or extricate their tenants they give 2 months notice and those tenants have to find new accomodation, no financial support to move (as in social housing) and no guarantees about staying in the local community, close to family or friends. In the private market you pay for every additional square metre, so why should social housing be any different.
‘Leaked’ is a rather over dramatic way of describing a document that was circulated by link to all RIAS members via a regular emailed newsletter? But there are no winners here. A profession so desperate it will regularly give away its expertise virtually free in competitions condoned by its professional bodies; in the hope of negotiating a desultory fee for a project with a wholly inadequate budget. Or the OJEU process itself? Fair playing field? Much fairer perhaps for some of the practices that Glasgow City Council phoned, invited to submit and subsequently shortlisted? Sympathies for JMP, but honestly you’re probably better off out of it.
I wasn't aware that BRE publish figures related to 'projects in the process of certification'. If the figures published here are a comparison of BREEAM certified vs. LEED certified + LEED in progress, it isn't possible to use them to draw conclusions on which of the schemes have greater traction in a particular territory.
Another speculative response. How can you have any idea about the quality of experience gained and if the responses are truthful. I work in an open and fair office that pays everone equally badly. As previously mentioned, the only way to generate useful and factual articles that don't make such sweeping statements is to obtain the information directly from the companies and have them assess their relevant experience. If it is true that some women earn less then this is not right at all and should be addressed, but there are guys, girls and others that earn various ammounts depending on how they entered into their terms and conditions when signing up for a contract. If your skill set is in demmand you have a better barganing chip, it is as simple as that. Regarding the career being affected by having a baby, surely that is down to personal choice... if you are no longer able to put in the ridiculous hours that most architects do then you will find yourself slip down the promotion list as others will offer the company more time and effort than somebody who feels they have to leave on time to take care of their families. It is a choice how you prioritise various elements of your life.
Ridiculous statements and graphs. Anything that starts "do you think..." implies that the answers are not fact based and therefore redundant and irrelevant. As architect's most of us believe that we are underpaid and over worked, so as a general rule most of us will assume the worst case scenario applies to us. Please re-write the article with some solid factual indformation. But I doubt you will be abvle to achieve this without full disclosure from a range of different sized architectural practices. This way you would have a leg to stand on and not just be putting irrelevant graphs into poorly thought through articles. As an industry we need to demmand more money for all, not just men, women, old, young etc.
I agree with Jonathan £150 is ridiculous for any competition, but particularly for such a small and temporary structure.
This has happened at the Portsmouth School of Architecture too where we will be moving from a purpose built building to some refurbished art studios and part share the new extension at the Eldon Building. This controversial move between staff and students does have its merits though. Vinesh
Comment on: Tory think tank calls for ARB abolition
Unfortunately just because you have a qualification that allows you to call yourself an 'architect' does not mean that you are a 'good designer', there are far too many poorly designed and detailed buildings submitted for planning every day that are designed by people that are architects, it is not just the plan drawers and architectural designers that the public need protection from...
Comment on: Tall buildings will change London for ever
Perhaps the least constructive article I've ever read in AJ.
Comment on: Tall buildings will change London for ever
"specialist design" covers all manner of sin. I don't mind change, but what I do detest is not being informed about it or asked to contribute to the discussion. This is the fundamental issue of this article and the proposed changes.
Comment on: Hodder unwraps Manchester 'student castle'
that looks nice... not
Surely the dwg style gives away the anonymity?...my guess: A - Henning Larsen B - Fielden Clegg C - Allies & Morrison D - Cullinan E - Hopkins F - Ian Simpson
Atkins paid a significant sum (£m's) to be an official sponsor and therefore have been able/ allowed to use (and aggressively have been) the Olympics in marketing materials. Why are they therefore included in this protest? In fact, by being included Atkins are surely promoting the loss of their partial exclusivity? Surely Atkins and the RIBA were aware of this seeming conflict?