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

Report this comment to a moderator

Please fill in the form below if you think a comment is unsuitable. Your comments will be sent to our moderator for review.
By submitting your information you agree to our Privacy & Cookie Policy.

Report comment to moderator

Required fields.

Headline

bptw partnership creates new neighbourhoods at Camberwell Fields

Comment

I am sure the architects and consultants for this scheme are people of integrity trying to do their best, but these schemes shouldn’t be rewarded with glossy spreads like this. I accept, nobody turns work away, especially when there are mouths to feed in the practice. However, our profession acquiesces to these socially destructive impulses by developers (and the completely unaccountable development arms of HAs) with puff pieces in magazines all the time. Here we are again with architecture celebrating the rapacious destruction of local communities through ‘blunt’ gentrification (as opposed to more judicious gentrification that caters for existing inhabitants on mixed-incomes). For instance, the article uses the word “affordable” seemingly without irony, suggesting, “The scheme focuses on creating a mixed community” – perhaps they can elaborate on how. An alternative take is, the Elmington estate was decanted a decade ago, and the only reason it remained derelict for so long was the financial crisis and local resistance to the mix. Literally across the park from this development, it took a judicial review to halt an identical scheme; Involving the same client partnership. Why no serious attention to these issues in the article? Without having to confront these trade-offs with honesty, how will we ever change the conversation? The profession will huff and puff and simper over the currents legitimising such institutional contexts. Contexts that allow Grenfells to happen. Then it will go back to making even better mouse traps. The AJ should take a lead through its editorial policy and at least provide more penetrating balance, alongside the endless hagiography.

Posted date

1 August, 2017

Posted time

12:15 pm

required
required
required
required

Job of the week

AJ Jobs