Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

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

We use cookies to personalise your experience; learn more in our Privacy and Cookie Policy. You can opt out of some cookies by adjusting your browser settings; see the cookie policy for details. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

dmulibej@dmu.ac.uk

Recent activity

Comments (4)

  • Comment on: Rogue practices are dishing out callous treatment to architectural workers

    dmulibej@dmu.ac.uk's comment 18 May, 2020 4:36 pm

    Please start to name and shame practices who employ such shameful working practices. If this information is not available to the employment market then practices will continue to hire and fire as they see fit. If this information is available to the employment market then the wider architectural fraternity can make informed choices about which practices to work for. Eventually those who cannot source employees due to their own poor people management will die off since they will not be able to resource projects.
    Or say nothing, let them carry on and nothing will change because they can get away with it.

  • Comment on: Southwark housing framework looking for ‘talented, idealistic’ new practices

    dmulibej@dmu.ac.uk's comment 5 November, 2019 12:55 pm

    Now we just need other Local Authorities – and not just in London – to follow this lead; it can only be beneficial to the majority of the working population and improve our built environment for everyone's benefit.

  • Comment on: ZEDpods may be coming to a car park near you

    dmulibej@dmu.ac.uk's comment 21 December, 2016 2:19 pm

    Are they seriously advocating living in a cramped box with minimal daylight, zero storage space, presumably no parking space and then paying £650 for the privilege as being an acceptable standard of living in the 21st century?
    As noted this does not even come close to meeting the minimum space standards for living. This is not a viable living solution fit for anyone to occupy. As architects we should be strongly fighting against this kind of ill thought through sorry excuse for housing not championing it! We must do better than this!

  • Comment on: Council referendum to decide Union Terrace Gardens’ fate

    dmulibej@dmu.ac.uk's comment 21 August, 2012 12:35 pm

    It's all very well Malcolm Reading describing the proposals as being of "exceptional quality and promise" but the fact of the matter is it will cost the City £90million (£140m less the £50m 'donation' by Sir Ian Wood). The council simply does not have this money available to spend. We already have enough financial problems caused by living beyond our means, this would only serve to exacerbate those financial problems. Also, the city already has plenty of problems which require serious investment to solve. Plunging itself into this massive debt is not the way to solve these issues.