Well, apparently publication will 'continue […] as collaboratively and collectively as ever.' This presumably means that staff and students will be asked to take charge of it - true to the AA's time-honoured and utterly outdated mantra that there isn't anything in the world that architects can't do.
Where do they find these people?
The fact that you pick Geneva as your object of comparison shows that you don't know anything about Switzerland.
The fact that you think the UK is the most pluralist and absorbent society in Europe shows that you don't know much about other European countries either.
And the fact that you think London is in any way representative for the UK as a whole shows that you don't even know your own country very well.
I would suggest you travel more or read more - or both.
"A darker, closeted, national trait that must also be present within their widely respected architectural culture." Are you joking?
This was not a vote by Swiss architects, it was a vote by the Swiss people as a whole. You really think the UK is the most pluralist and absorbent culture in Europe?
Well, Switzerland comprises people of four different languages (all of which are official) and more than every fifth person living in Switzerland is a foreigner. Muslims might be small in numbers but they amount to 4,3% of the total population which is much higher than in the UK.
Obviously, a majority of people are uncomfortable with that. As a Swiss I am deeply disappointed and embarrassed by the outcome of this vote. However, the reason why every now and then you find it hard to explain yourself to the world is because we actually get to vote on every little detail on the political agenda.
No offense, but I have lived in the UK long enough to have a pretty good idea what the outcome of a similar vote would be in this country.
I am Swiss and I am very surprised - and embarrassed.
Architectural monuments are the only physical reminders of a nation's cultural past and are as such of particular importance for society as a whole. From a historian's point of view, their identity-establishing role reaches far beyond questions of economic purpose or aesthetical appearance. Obviously, this view can be challenged, and there can be valuable reasons to replace listed buildings. However, if these reasons are clear from the beginning i.e. if the decision is made to replace the library, why ask EH for its assessment? It is disrespectful and makes a travesty of the procedure.
As a historian of architecture and a foreigner living in England I am puzzled by the lack of recognition brutalist architecture receives in this country. Earlier this month your PM praised British architects for the impact they make throughout the world. It remains to be seen whether this is true or not in the long run. As for brutalist architecture this impact is undeniable and you should be proud of it.
Yay, I won. I just received my copy. Thanks a lot!
Thank you very much for your clarifications.
I am not very familiar with the planning procedures in the UK (yet), so please forgive my ignorance. It seems to me that Prince Charles interefered after an architectural competition had been decided. Does this mean that organisers of competitions in the UK are not legally bound to whatever the outcome is? If so, this seems very, very unusual in an European context and opens doors for very undemocratic interventions, indeed, as others have pointed out.