We don't yet have the final report, but the suggestion that refused schemes should be named and shamed seems likely to complicate even further the already taxing relationship between planners and those seeking planning permission. The grounds for refusal on the basis of ugliness will need to be very carefully set out. "Building beautiful" remains a challenging concept and, if it is to be policed in the way suggested, raises real questions about the legitimacy of the process and the scope for its abuse, particularly where local "interests" are involved.
There are too many shortcomings in the way some of these competitions are organised. The onus should be on the people organising a competition to have a system to assess planning issues before a competition is launched and to assess costs before determining a winner.
Organisers need to have proper regard for the amount of resource involved in entering such competitions.
Comment on: Big practices braced for Brexit job cuts
While avoiding No Deal is essential, as the RIBA have made very clear, people seem to have temporarily lost sight of the fact that May's Deal explicitly accepts that trade in services with the EU will be reduced compared to the past. Firms in services sectors, for instance, financial services, have yet to reveal the full scope of the resulting move out of the UK which is likely only to emerge towards the end of the May Deal transition period. Uncertainly about the demand for construction will be unresolved for years to come, affecting all practices, whatever their size.
Very elegant indeed. And fit so well with Amanda Levete's Media Centre.
A great job by great architects. And a tribute to those who commissioned the proposal.
Let us not forget, though, the damage caused when small office buildings suitable for and needed by SMEs in town centres vanish because of the profit available in conversion to housing.
More thought needed all round.