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.

Paul Lewis

Recent activity

Comments (23)

  • Comment on: Architecture union launches to fight ‘toxic culture’ of overwork

    Paul Lewis's comment 30 October, 2019 9:36 am

    The RIBA is supposed to do this and has failed miserably for decades. We shouldn't need a union this is a job for the RIBA.

    Low wages and long hours are driven by low fees & visa versa. Practice directors accept low fees knowing they can make a project work financially as their employees will work long and hard for little.

    If employees stood up and said 'no' then fees would have to go up as directors would not make a profit. Most employees can't do this as they fear for their jobs. So good luck to the union, if they can give young architects a voice to say 'no' the profession can break this awful culture of long hours and low pay that the RIBA should have done.

  • Comment on: New national design guide: the industry reacts

    Paul Lewis's comment 7 October, 2019 9:20 am

    Context, context, context. I am sick and tired of planners making me dumb down well designed buildings to fit within the context of dull, dreary inter-war suburban tat!

    This country is obsessed with Mock-Tudor / Neo-Georgian rubbish. It consumes all design and brings it down to the lowest common denominator.

    Has anyone told the planners / Government that combining inter-war tat with the required balcony amenity spaces and a blanket no-render policy is nigh on impossible. We are in an era of dull brick boxes with recessed balconies with only a liberal splatter of projecting header bricks to break up the monotony.

    Its design by numbers and its producing a new batch of 21st Century rubbish that future generations will have to fit in with therefore repeating the cycle of junk.

    Why don't we just all go back to living in caves and using horse and carts?

  • Comment on: TV architect calls on government to build 100,000 council homes a year

    Paul Lewis's comment 2 August, 2019 9:05 am

    Try selling a development to an HA with less than 20 and sometimes 40 homes. They are just not interested, they are also not interested in purchasing developments that mix social and general sale homes. Any development between 10 and 20 homes is in limbo, no one will buy them and the off site contributions / 106 / CIL make them uneconomic to build. Anything 9 and under there is no requirement for affordable homes and if there was no HA would buy them as they are too small to manage.

    Any development over 20/40 requires complex intensification of 3 plus site joined, this meets with massive public opposition, we see objections in the hundreds.

    Developers and architects get the blame but its the public who are nimby's, the GOV who have disjointed policy, the planners who are stuck in past utopias (scared of upsetting the nimbiy's) and the HA's who refuse to look at the many smaller sites that are offered to them.

    Planning policy needs to change to allow suburban intensification (such as in Croydon). More creative solutions are needed for car parking and ownership (as this limits intensification). The public need to be educated that homes are needed and if everyone was a Nimby nothing would get build and 4.5M families and their children will be bought up in temporary accommodation, their children with no happy memories or healthy foundation in life. HA's need to radically re-think how they manage their estates so they can buy smaller sites.

  • Comment on: AJ student survey 2019: the harsh realities of life in practice

    Paul Lewis's comment 29 July, 2019 9:59 am

    This just shows how woefully lacking architectural education is in preparation for professional life.

    This year I visited a final year degree show for the 1st time in many years. Nothing I saw was architecture. Illustration & 3D modelling perhaps.

    I have worked with graduates but unfortunately, through no fault of their own, they have not been taught the necessary skills and cost me time as a lot of their work has to be re-done. Its a real shame but many graduates are only employable as 3D modellers.

    There is no comprehension of design constraints, budgets, planning requirements, coordination, building control or the importance of client briefs.

    Many of the graduates seem disappointed they are not given projects to design. Given the lack of skills they have been given and the litigious nature of architecture this is hardly surprising!

    Its a disgrace they are not allowed to visit sites or shadow an architect on site. I shadowed through my part 3 and it was invaluable. This should part of the part 3 programme or else graduates will just become visualisers.

    A complete overhaul of the education system is required and quickly! Eastern European graduates know much more than UK graduates so we should be looking at how other countries teach their aspiring next generation of architects.

    We are not doing enough for graduates and its a disgrace. Having great ideas is fine but if you don't have the ability to realise them they will come to nothing.

  • Comment on: Mayor rejects ‘unwelcoming, poorly designed’ Tulip

    Paul Lewis's comment 16 July, 2019 9:51 am

    There are plenty of tall buildings to view London from without creating another for no reason other than vanity. The square mile is now a collection of miss matched buildings the scale and mass mostly dictated by the out of date London View Management Framework which should be scraped.

    I strongly agree with David Farmery that the Post Office tower already exists and could be re purposed to return it to world class iconic tourist attraction i once was.

    This decision is the right one, along with the scrapping of the garden bridge. Anyone who wants to use tens of thousands of tons of concrete to make a park over a river when you can make a park next to the river on existing ground is deluded. Same goes for a stick thin tower with a knob on top.

    London is not hitting the 'miserabilist' buffers as Paul Finch suggests, it needs to make mature, sustainable, future proof decisions. its not Disney World!

View all comments