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.

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.


Let’s have honesty about the costs of the Westminster retrofit


Although it’s now over 5 years down the line, without any debate about strategy and only tactical implementation, over the past couple of years the public generally have come to realise significant deficiencies with Parliament and the suitability of the houses for a modern democracy. At the very least modernisation is necessary, but reform might be considered likely and any such modernisation or reform should best be manifest in a physical architectural form. Given the abject lack of strategy isn’t it time architects fully moved to open up and enter this debate? The lack of alternative advocacy appears to lack architectural foresight, leadership and planning. How best might this now be opened up to architectural and strategic discourse?

Posted date

1 April, 2019

Posted time

10:01 am


Job of the week

Discover architecture career opportunities. Search and apply online for your dream job.
Find out more