Congratulations to everyone involved in the design and procurement of this exemplary social housing scheme. The decision to reward socially responsive schemes on a modest budget, and in particular to shine a light on the transformative nature of well designed public housing is long over due. Perhaps RIBA could now start lobbying the government to address Britain's housing crisis. The judges also deserve credit for having the courage to look beyond the usual round up of "A" list architects for a winner.
Comment on: Alan Jones: the RIBA’s promo president
I have read between the lines of this disappointing interview in the hope of finding what this President stands for. However this interview, not unlike Jones' speech to an invited professional audience in Manchester last year speaks volumes about, not just Jones' lack of vision, but also of the lack of direction of RIBA, if not the wider profession. Society is facing a multitude of critical issues at present - environment, internationalism; homelessness; safety; equality of opportunity, etc. Maybe if he were to focus on his one truth in the interview, he may find a solution worth talking about - ‘I think you could argue that just being an architect is a problem.’
It is hardly surprising we have a housing shortage crisis in this country.
I had a flat overlooking this sight when the news broke of Frank Gehry's original scheme and fearing blight for up to 5 years I bailed out and sold.
My daughter was 3 at the time and is now approaching 21 and at Uni. What a tragic waste of resource, time, and energy whichever side you might be on. Something has to change!
The Inspector's decision is welcome and must be a huge relief for the architect owner and local community. The decision though does not give the architect back his time and expense fighting a needless and controversial decision. Islington Council need to be held responsible financially and obliged to compensate the architect for all the damage this has caused and the individuals within the Council need to resign for their wrong interpretation of planning law and for wasting public funds in fighting this case. Maybe the architect could "crowd-fund" the legal costs of taking action against the Council - not just for their wrongful actions but also the resultant damage to the architects reputation and commercial standing.
Check out an Ad on Google for a Company named RESI - they come up first in a search for Architects North London. They also carry an ARB Logo. My understanding was that at least one of the partners had to be an ARB registered Architect - have the rules changed?