Neville Morgan
Recent activity
Comments (6)
-
Comment on: George Oldham found guilty of misconduct over ‘ethnics’ email
George Oldham has been wasting the time and resources of ARB for years on unnecessary, spurious and irrelevant arguments between ARB and RIBA. Thank you Oldham for this ill-considered approach when the profession sinks lower and lower in the eyes of the general public. Heard the word co-operation when it comes to promoting the role of architects in society - I guess not. Your jibe about "ethnics" clearly has racial overtones and was meant to be divisive or you would not have couched it in those terms. Whilst I agree with Yasmin Shariff, one can hardly blame ARB for the wording of an Act drafted by civil servants and passed by politicians. Had Oldham not wasted ARB's time all these years then perhaps ARB and RIBA would have had the time to sit down together and lobby politicians to bring about such changes. Oldham's actions have clearly held back the profession in a time when much needed positive action was needed to promote the relevance of architects in today's society and as such, in my view, erasure from the register would be fully justified.
-
Comment on: Relaxed rules for house extensions could become permanent, says minister
A charter for cowboy builders and slum landlords. Will do nothing for the housebuilding industry other than encourage more shoddy unsustainable extensions and produce yet more party wall, boundary and other neighbour disputes. Encouraging more affordable housing is what is needed not sops to the middle and upper classes. Bowles is out of touch and frankly incompetent. Still what do you expect from the Tory party.
-
Comment on: KSS submits plans for Fulham Football Club redevelopment
I see you have now replaced the existing stadium picture with one of the new proposals and I believe added a reference to the Grade 2 listed Johnny Haynes stand, though still no analysis of the proposals. Well done - to where do I send my invoice for journalistic research services provided ?
-
Comment on: KSS submits plans for Fulham Football Club redevelopment
This article is extremely poorly researched showing a picture of the existing stadium and focusing on the Michael Jackson statue instead of analysing the stadium proposals. As a Fulham season ticket holder I know most fans regard the statue as an irrelevance merely being an indulgence by Al Fayed and tolerated by them in acknowledgment of what he has done for the club. Lets get back to what matters and what should have been covered in this article. Opening up the riverfront walkway will be a fantastic improvement both visually and in planning terms helping to relieve crowd congestion in Stevenage Road on match days and thus improving conditions for local residents. It appears the new stand has been designed so that a new upper tier cantilevered over the river can be constructed first and once finished the existing stand beneath will be renovated thus avoiding a major loss of capacity (and revenue) during the construction phase. Consideration has also been given to the environmental impact on the River Thames and the effect of the new stand on air flow in an area heavily used by the sailing and rowing clubs based on the opposite bank. The only major criticism I would make is that it appears no consideration has been given in the re-development proposals to improving the very poor facilities and conditions in the Grade 2 listed Johnny Hayes stand opposite. Architects experienced in this field could make a major contribution here. The current proposals will primarily benefit the "prawn sandwich" section of the crowd and improve the external environment but will not improve conditions for the majority of real supporters. Fulham FC should look to improve facilities in this area as part of these proposals and the AJ should refrain from silly articles about irrelevant statues and research articles properly before publishing them.
-
Comment on: The Diary of an Anonymous Architect #1
All this would fall under work stage K for which the client declined to employ the architect. There is no JCT contract and the terms of any contract between the client and the joiner are not stated. The architect would be extremely unwise to get involved without establishing the terms of agreement between the two parties. It appears that a good number of hours have been spent by the architect sorting this out yet there is no mention of the client being charged for the hours spent providing this additional service. If the architect is not charging then he/she is underselling the profession. It's bad enough trying to get a reasonable fee for our services without having to compete with others in the profession who are prepared to work for nothing.
Access over 100 years of projects
