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

To judge by the mobs baying for access to avant-garde architecture all over the capital, Open House weekend has been an even greater achievement than in previous years. Architecture Week got off to a good start last year and promises to spread this year. To the initiated observer, though, these two events would gain immeasurably by being linked. With a bit of rescheduling Architecture Week could be kicked off by two days of Open House, and forge a direct connection between our professional work and our built successes.

But the inextricable link between our products and our practice continues to elude the government and the way it deals with architecture. The current worthwhile attempts by the Department of Culture to look again at the structures that seek to ensure architectural quality, falls at this first post - that so-called Built Heritage is being considered for structural revision separately from the Category Known As Architecture. Thus the discussion of architecture refers rather pitifully to the department's hoped-for role in the promotion of good practice. Inspired no doubt by generations of politicians paying good money to be stamped on by Miss Cane in her various guises, it moots the notion of a body encouraging good architecture which would be funded by its 'beneficiaries'.

The best means for supplying both the benchmarks for architectural quality, and promoting mass enthusiasm for it, is obviously buildings themselves. Let's outlaw the word 'heritage', particularly in its manifestation of 'English Heritage', which sounds like an especially unpleasant offshoot of the British National Party. Successful architecture of all dates is used and delighted in right now. The Department of Culture should make a positive step and get rid of the bureaucratic and destructive separation between architectural activity, past and future.

  • 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.