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'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more


  • Comment

The argument put forward by Foreign Office Architects (FOA) and Allies and Morrison (A&M) as to why they deserve to remain involved in the 2012 London Olympics (AJ 14.07.05) is simply not valid and does a disservice to the profession.

Many good architects, keen to impress, go 'above and beyond the call of duty' on early-stage projects, only to have the client re-tender subsequent stages of work, because they are required by law or corporate purchasing policy. Practices knew this going into it, so it should be no surprise to them now. Architecture is a competitive business and we try to distinguish ourselves from each other by adding unique value to our projects, but it is every firm's responsibility to their own business, and to the profession, to know when enough is enough, and it is also every firm's choice as to the amount of commercal risk they are willing to take. This business would be much easier if we all were given more work without competition simply because we went further for our client, but that is just not reality.

Of course, it would be unfair for the London Development Agency to risk losing the public's investment in the ideas they purchased from FOA and A&M, and I do hope they are commissioned for some of their schemes, but no one ever said business is fair.

Richard Nelson, business development director, Llewelyn Davies Yeang

  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.