This article demonstrates how far removed the AJ has become from being the Architects' Journal. The real story is who is building and collaborating on the 75% of houses not delivered by the 'Big 3'. If the AJ reported on football, nobody outside the top 4 of the Premiership would get much of a look in. The "More Homes Better Homes" campaign appears devoid of any in-depth reporting on complicated issues and pushes against an open door.
Comment on: Let's use our influence wisely
Let's hope that great debate is extended to people beyond the small coterie of practices who have a stranglehold on housing policy within the architectural profession.
The symbolism of architects sipping champagne (also not uncommon for AJ staffers) in a moat while people with a democratic right to protest have to shout to make themselves heard says it all about the current state of architects and their "cllients".
Comment on: Superdensity driven by 'frenzy of avarice'
Collectively, the architects who have produced this "report", have a stranglehold on housing and housing policy. So by collaborating is their intention to strangle at birth any alternative view on how our cities are to develop? Or is the intention to pre-empt any future debate? The sincerity of seeking a "review" is also highly questionable as their opinion is absolutely clear. Higher density is wrong. Nor is their collective ethical position beyond reproach. These architects also have no hesitation in accepting work from Housing Associations who now appear forced to start acting more and more like commercial property developers. Although architects may be an easy target, the militancy of people's reaction to loosing perfectly good tenancies will increase due to Housing Associations using subsidies from "luxury" flats to build so called, "affordable" housing. Calling for policymakers to impose yet more restrictions also smacks of a dictatorial approach. Thank goodness the Government did not accept the argument put forward by the same group of architects for introducing mandatory minimal space standards. Someone needs to stand up to this group of practices who are seeking to establish a monopoly of opinions on housing.
An abomination of a "house". Totally indulgent. Whimsical in the extreme. Built for a cultural elite obsessed with their own self importance and aggrandisement. An insult to the autonomy of architecture. (But I'm glad it got built.)