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

Mary Douglas

Recent activity

Comments (7)

  • Comment on: Conservationists slam AHMM’s temporary House of Commons plan

    Mary Douglas's comment 16 October, 2018 11:29 am

    As the inevitable squabbling continues about the temporary parliament solution, it shouldn't be forgotten there was a third way which would have been the cheapest of all options put forward. HMS Parliament. www.hmsparliament.com Studio Octopi in collaboration with Beckett Rankine, Expedition, Jackson Coles, Houlder and Securewest. Sadly the idea was dismissed by MPs and TfL sold the Woolwich Ferries for scrap for £37,000 each. Now we're talking about demolition, install and then presumably reinstatement. What spectacular waste when there could have been virtually none.

  • Comment on: London’s skyscraper spree stutters amid Brexit uncertainty

    Mary Douglas's comment 19 April, 2018 2:00 pm

    With the disastrous consequences of having built so insensibly too many mediocre towers across London becoming more and more evident to all (just take yourself to Nine Elms if in any doubt!), it is a small consolation that, finally, a first indication that this collective madness might have peaked is emerging.
    Planning applications are down, starts on site are down, completions are down, though we can still expect a horrendous new wave of completions washing over us over the next two years, the final blow to the London we knew and loved.
    The Vu-city images are an irrefutable confirmation of the new horrors that await us. London's character is being eroded more and more, and for little or no benefit, as evidenced by the current glut of empty luxury flats . Outer London's increasing efforts to 'keep up with the Jones'" by acquiring at least one tall building each, are pathetic and misguided to the extreme, and go against the Mayor's promises not to impose unwanted tall buildings on residents that are resisting them. We need to build high-density, mid-rise housing, not towers – we all know this, so why isn’t it happening? We are living in London's Dark Ages of urban planning and architectural design, governed by greed, short-termism, denial, megalomania and intellectual bankruptcy, to name a few - the next generation’s judgment of our legacy will not make happy reading.
    Barbara Weiss

  • Comment on: Patrik Schumacher has provided a necessary challenge to housing

    Mary Douglas's comment 30 November, 2016 10:32 am

    (on behalf of Paul Finch) Who exactly decides whether an idea is 'respectable' or not? And what happens if one person thinks it is but others don't? You end up on a slippery slope to the world of third-rate student unions banning free speech if it might cause 'offence'. The only way to encourage ideas about housing is to ventilate them. Publication does not imply approval, a concept some find difficult to take on board. Paul Finch

  • Comment on: Patrik Schumacher has provided a necessary challenge to housing

    Mary Douglas's comment 24 November, 2016 10:19 am

    (On behalf of Paul Finch) That is why I said I have no faith in private house-builders creating a sufficiency of stock. I am therefore baffled by this response. Paul Finch

  • Comment on: Comps insider: Rotherhithe offers bridge procurement fresh start

    Mary Douglas's comment 10 November, 2016 9:49 am

    (On behalf of Paul Finch)
    You don't need a competition to find out if the Port of London Authority rules preclude a low-level bridge. The question which needs determining, if there is to be a low-level option, is how frequently the bridge would be raised before its purpose became hopelessly compromised. Another question is whether the competition criteria adopted (eg financial turnover) prejudice the chances of smaller practices getting beyond the first stage, let alone the likelihood of winning. This applies even though they may be talented and committed, which is certainly the case with reForm Architects and Elliott Wood, whose proposed design was immediately welcomed by Sustrans, who know more about bridges than the GLA. The constant call for competitions plays into the hands of project management ideology which is far from good for architects. There isn't of course any competition involved in writing the brief and setting out criteria which begin to pre-determine the sort of winners likely to emerge. From observation, the weighting given to design quality is far too low but competition-groupies don't seem to care. Paul Finch

View all comments

Job of the week

AJ Jobs