The logic of this is that the Bloomberg building shouldn't have been shortlisted. But what about other buildings on the list that were expensive? Should they be excluded because of austerity (a phoney phrase to anyone who experienced the real thing in the 1930s), or political upheaval (always with us), or environmental crisis (which prompted a specific design response from the winner)? All these factors existed when a Maggie's Centre won. Was it relevant to them? Was the profession sending a message? No, except in the minds of those who really want there to be one, provided it is one they like. As Alfred Hitchcock used to say, 'Leave messages to Western Union'.
Excellent project and look forward to its completion.
if we are to have a new wave of 'council estates' it is critical that they don't replicate failed social/tenure models from the past. A proportion of the homes should be for sale, thereby generating revenue for further development. This policy should also put a stop to demands on volume house-builders to supply so-called affordable home -- in effect a tax on the main suppliers of new housing. Having said that, removing the borrowing cap is as welcome as it was unexpected.
Comment on: Unpicking Amin Taha’s Clerkenwell Close fiasco
Great building, absurd behaviour by council, dim-witted planning chair.
Comment on: Fake architect fined following ARB probe
Sledgehammer cracks nut . . . after 10 months. Sad.