Chris Medland's comments
What was Zaha Hadid's turnover when she won the Vitra fire station competion? I'd hazard a guess that it was much less than £550k a year.
All good project start with a good, worthwhile brief - a problem to solve. This thing serves no purpose that isn't already fulfilled or cannot be fulfilled at ground level. Its an egotistical wasteful use materials and a symbol of a bygone look at me, bling, crass age. Its not remotely a tulip - it has no biomimicry qualities whatsoever, it's more akin to cotton bud laden with the translucent pus that has oozed from whatever has just been swabbed. If this gets built anyone concerned with climate change, anyone concerned with sea level rise, anyone concerned with ethics in development should just give up.
For me its black and white - something is either sustainable or its not. Even if the designers make this as sustainable as remotely possible, it is still not sustainable. This is a project that is based on an old economy that no longer exists - I wouldn't be at all surprised if it gets binned after several hundred million pounds are spent.
I think Sadie Morgan is one of the best architects of the past two generations and this one. Despite this I would have thought that anybody on the National Infrastructure Commission board and the practices that they represent should not have any involvement in projects that the board has an influence over - to me this is common sense and should be a prerequisite for being on the board in the first place.
imagine the rents... it wont happen
As good as it is, the most sustainable office tower is the one that doesn't get built because people work from home.
look, designing good homes is difficult. being efficient with the plan, maximising daylight, reducing overlooking etc. etc. but... why do all these contemporary high density developments look the same? There seems always to be a larger aperture than window, the top floor proportions are always a multiple of the lower floor and open to elements, brick panelling in various shades etc.. Even the polish on these proposals is from the same menu- sedum roof, PV's, the overly ambitious large trees on the roof. Its getting boring. what does this series of building have to do with the site, with Birmingham in the 21st century, with be regenerative and preparing its occupants for climate change? I have no doubt that it is an expertly crafted plan, and precisely detailed building that will be efficient and serve the client well, but, despite it being by an exciting practice, good god its boring. If these guys with their track record and such good clients are doing this where's progress going to come from? If it cant come in such large scale investments what chance do we, as architects, stand on smaller projects? Now is surely the time to be pushing the envelope - this doesn't, its just really good efficient work by an excellent practice. But where's architecture gone?
that looks like a tied arch bridge, not a suspension bridge....
I remember when people were touting David Bentley as the new David Beckham. Turns out that he was crap in comparison.
The worlds best architects have made a dogs dinner in Battersea. What a contrived wiggly mess. D- at any school of architecture yet itts been waved through by Heritage England. Even after years of looking at the schemes shiny fat faces of various shades of bling it still shocks me every time just how bad it all is. If you are stupid enough to spend £1m+ on a tiny one bed apartment to live there then good luck to you.... I make no apology for my bad mood! 3 kids and home working may have influenced it.
agree 100% with Maria Smith. I hope that this crisis will lead to many positive changes socially, environmentally and economically. The reset button has been pressed, all change is possible.
great effort. Well done
Despite their own internal environmental lobbying group (CEN) this conservative Government simply don't get it. This is a reckless, reactionary and ill thought through policy that will only benefit volume house builders who have yet again, we can only assume, used their financial clout to successfully lobby government and effect policy change in their favour.
nice. good work
many welcome points particulrarly in regard to PD and VAT, however, often I salivate over beautiful new country homes by the likes of John Pardy etc.- my wife however thinks they are ugly, cold and box like. How do you legislate for that - how do you legislate for personal taste.
Nearly a century after the Weissenhofsiedlung and most volume house builders are still throwing up this shite, blighting the suburbs and the shires alike. Despite 90% of new homes not being designed by Architects its clear that the wider population blame us for this. Its embarrassing at best, a huge con at worst. This study is important in highlighting and measuring the under performance and failings - the perpetrators should be fined punitively and made to repair the ecological and environmental damage.
The Garden Bridge was about 3 years too late to join the list of completed vanity projects. It would have been the epitome of the post 2012 Olympic glow, for better or for worse. The dedicated transport funding spent and the political fallout from its demise still today taints other projects, even those with a proven transport and environmental benefit. It would seem that Sadiq Kahn as mayor will not support river crossings at all where they are needed (with the exception of a £1bn road tunnel) whereas Boris Johnson was seemingly gung ho about his pet projects. Perhaps we need to consider taking infrastructure spending away from the mayors portfolio and into a non political transport planning department. Decisions should be based on provable benefits to London as a whole. The mayor can have a separate power over special projects but clearly, in the past 3 terms, both mayors have failed to deliver a single river crossing. I personally have had more success than either of them in progressing such a public project despite having spent no public funds whatsoever. In the case of the Cremorne bridge planning is granted, piles are in the ground and Wandsworth Council have nearly 2/3rds of the funding raised. its taken nearly 9 years to get to this point and the current mayor has confirmed that he will not assign a single penny. His decision is not based on cost benefit ratio or health and environmental benefits, or air quality improvements - his decision is based purely on the fact that the bridge is west of tower bridge - his decision is political and based on how people will vote and his calculation must be that some people in east London will not vote for him if he helps build a bridge in west London. Those same people are suffering from poor air quality, are at risk from increased climate change. If the decision to contribute to this public infrastructure was anything but political it would have been completed in 2018. Sadiq Kahn needs to change his mind and be a mayor for all London or I expect he will be replaced this year with another mayor.
on the bright side... Arup and Heatherwick will be recruiting
sorry to be controversial, as good as the proposal is (its great) so was the existing house. What happened to retrofit first?
Sir David King, UK govs Special rep for Climate Change until 2017, was just on Radio 4's the World at One and calmly and factually pointed out that London is not a city that is in a sustainable location - it will be under the sea a lot sooner than currently anticipated. He recommends that it is moved. How long will is be business as usual?