I wasn't so much criticising, than just suggesting any architect who is signed up to Architects Declare should publicly state how any project relates to the pledges, otherwise the pledges remain distinct from real projects and not something to be continually tested against.
There will be logical reasons in many instances for not always aligning to the pledges, but if they are acknowledged in press releases & discussion then at least it can be a public conversation.
But, more importantly, having been to the San Siro to see Ipswich Town play (and lose against!) Inter, those never-ending spirals will be a huge loss to stadium architecture! Not to mention the power of turning the corner from the stables and seeing that wonderful roof towering above.
Populous have signed up to Architects Declare. I would like to know more information about their proposal with regards to the pledges:
Upgrade existing buildings for extended use as a more carbon efficient alternative to demolition and new build whenever there is a viable choice.
Evaluate all new projects against the aspiration to contribute positively to mitigating climate breakdown, and encourage our clients to adopt this approach.
Adopt more regenerative design principles in our studios, with the aim of designing architecture and urbanism that goes beyond the standard of net zero carbon in use.
Minimise wasteful use of resources in architecture and urban planning, both in quantum and in detail.
How many landmarks does one square mile need?
While there is nothing new or revelationary in this report, it is worth reading for those who have followed this whole debacle for how it concentrates on that key period of Johnson's directive to soften the payment requirements and the consequential decision by Trustees to sign a huge contract, which has still not been made public.
This also reads as a final line on the matter by the Assembly, and is a clear call for Meg Hillier and the Parliamentary Accounts Commission to pick up the baton and use all the documentation that has come from City Hall and elsewhere to use their stronger powers of summons and scrutiny to fully investigate and hold to account.
To "Anon" and "Number 5", I am not sure the point of this is to be the *thing* which stops Johnson for good.
It's just a matter of ethics and responsibility. Having considered the points made by the petition, should it be that Johnson has the ethics which suit the honorary position? It will probably not be reported outside of architectural press, and have not a jot of difference to the bigger scheme of things, and that's fine and irrelevant. But what are the ethics of RIBA, that's still quite important if the institution is to have any value to its members.