By continuing to use the site you agree to our Privacy & Cookies policy

Your browser seems to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser.

Close

Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Close

Robert Guy

Robert Guy

Recent activity

Comments (11)

  • Comment on: Third of biggest housebuilders don't employ own architects

    Robert Guy's comment 26-Jan-2015 4:16 pm

    I probably did say what has been reported (and, hey, it has got a response!) but without the circumstances in which it was said, I agree, it doesn't sound correct. Many schemes using standardised house types have never seen an architect. A planning consultant will plan the scheme and obtain the consent (and I can understand why, given the current planning system) using house types which are developed ‘in house’ by the housing developer. I made the comment in relation to this type of scheme. If the developer does not directly employ an architect then none will be used in the process. I also made the same points as Wayne Hemmingway and added that most housing through history has been built without using architects. I looked up the ARB figures to see if it helped inform the the housing debate instigated by the AJ where standardised solutions, whether they be city towers or bland estates built on green field sites are rightfully being questioned. Direct employment of architects may say something about the particular companies. I think the response from Sean Ellis sums up the situation very well and it is interesting that he sees using non standard designs as giving St James and Berkeley Homes a competitive edge. I agree architects have produced some excellent innovative housing schemes for some of these developers however I have also seen many housing ‘estates’ built by those same developers which are bland, unimaginative and which could be anywhere.

  • Comment on: Dunlop: ‘build a new library at the Mack not a replica’

    Robert Guy's comment 22-Dec-2014 1:21 pm

    I'm with John McAslan on this. I think it should be recreated as it was. It only has any meaning if it is here and it is possible to build designs based on it (or not) elsewhere. After all Mackintosh didn't build it himself so recreating it from his drawings (and other sources) is the same as it was first time around. I don't view this as a lost opportunity. The 100 years of patina are gone and are nothing to do with Mackintosh.

  • Comment on: AJ poll: 40% of architects working more than 10 hours overtime a week

    Robert Guy's comment 24-Nov-2014 3:08 pm

    I'd be interested to know if this attitude is the same with engineers and other members of the design team. Given how they are acknowledged as better at running business' it would suggest that this doesn't happen. I rather think it does though.

  • Comment on: MP accuses tower developer of 'sheer naked greed'

    Robert Guy's comment 27-Jun-2014 7:38 pm

    ...and what of the architects? I don't know the circumstances behind this scheme so couldn't say whether it is justified or not but isn't this also a criticism of the architect and not just the developer?

  • Comment on: London skyline being built by 'dirty Russian money' says Rees

    Robert Guy's comment 31-May-2014 10:52 am

    So, presumably those architects designing these buildings can be accused taking the same 'dirty' shilling? Please can say what you think of the architects carrying out these commissions?

View all comments

The searchable digital buildings archive with drawings from more than 1,500 projects

AJ newsletters

Jobs

Architectural Technologist - Chelmsford- £neg + Bens

£20000 - £60000 per annum + BENEFITS

Architect

£32000.00 - £40000.00 per annum

Designer

£28000.00 - £38000.00 per annum