B******s to Architecture
Irreverent opinion on (mainly UK) architecture and architects
200 : Considerably Poorer Than Yow
Posted Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 1:33 PM
Link
I've commented before on the very different approaches that M'Lords Foster and Rogers are taking to their retirement plans, most notably in Posting [95]. We now have evidence of the equally divergent approach that they have to their "wealth".
Norman is moving to Switzerland - see numerous press articles over the last few weeks - although "spokesmen" for the Good Lord deny that this has anything to do with the advantageous tax regime in that lovely country.
Meanwhile, Richard has been forced to write to BD - see [this letter] - to deny that he should even be included in the Sunday Times Rich List and alleging that he is worth considerably less than the £52m attributed to him by the newspaper.
Is Financial Modesty the new Black?
Posted Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 1:33 PM
Link
I've commented before on the very different approaches that M'Lords Foster and Rogers are taking to their retirement plans, most notably in Posting [95]. We now have evidence of the equally divergent approach that they have to their "wealth".Norman is moving to Switzerland - see numerous press articles over the last few weeks - although "spokesmen" for the Good Lord deny that this has anything to do with the advantageous tax regime in that lovely country.
Meanwhile, Richard has been forced to write to BD - see [this letter] - to deny that he should even be included in the Sunday Times Rich List and alleging that he is worth considerably less than the £52m attributed to him by the newspaper.
Is Financial Modesty the new Black?
199 : Egan Blames Government
Posted Monday, May 12, 2008 at 8:44 AM Link
How intensely gratifying to see that construction guru Sir John Egan has a similar view to B2A about the OFT investigation highlighted in Posting [191] - read [this Building article].
Posted Monday, May 12, 2008 at 8:44 AM
Link
How intensely gratifying to see that construction guru Sir John Egan has a similar view to B2A about the OFT investigation highlighted in Posting [191] - read [this Building article].
198 : More TV Bollocks
Posted Friday, May 09, 2008 at 10:00 AM Link
Posted Friday, May 09, 2008 at 10:00 AM
Link
Only mild apologies for returning, yet again, to the subject of Grand Designs - my excuse being that this TV programme is now watched by so many people that it sets the agenda for how 99% of the population view architecture and the architectural profession. So here is a brief run-down of under half-an-hour of last night's TV:
- BBC News at Ten : Item about ITV, and others, being fined £millions for rigging the results of live TV phone-in polls so that the producer's choice (not the public's choice) wins.
- Grand Designs Live : Live TV phone-in poll for GD "Best Eco Home" won by the ghastly Penwhilwr straw bale house - shome mishtake shurely.
- Grand Designs Live : After announcing the results of the Best Eco Home, the camera pans out to show Canary Wharf at night with every bloody light blazing - what a great eco-example that was to us all.
I give up.
197 : Davina McCloud
Posted Thursday, May 08, 2008 at 12:32 PM Link
OH MY GOD - Has anyone else actually watched Grand Designs Live? With Spring having finally arrived in the UK, watching TV in the evenings is the last thing I've felt like doing but I thought, just out of curiosity, that I ought to tune-in to at least one episode of the latest attempt by Channel 4 and Kevin McCloud to take over the architectural universe.
Imagine my surprise to be confronted by KMcC in the middle of Docklands, dressed-up with a very noticeable earpiece, and with cheering (jeering?) crowds in the background. I dashed to the TV Guide - no it wasn't, as I thought, that Kevin had taken over from Davina McCall as the Big Brother host; this really was Grand Designs Live. Could you watch it for more than a couple of minutes? I couldn't, and returned to the sun lounger with a cool beer. How the mighty have fallen. Can they fall any further? Only time will tell ...
PS (Added Sunday, May 11)
It's gratifying to see that the TV critics agree ...
Posted Thursday, May 08, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Link
OH MY GOD - Has anyone else actually watched Grand Designs Live? With Spring having finally arrived in the UK, watching TV in the evenings is the last thing I've felt like doing but I thought, just out of curiosity, that I ought to tune-in to at least one episode of the latest attempt by Channel 4 and Kevin McCloud to take over the architectural universe.Imagine my surprise to be confronted by KMcC in the middle of Docklands, dressed-up with a very noticeable earpiece, and with cheering (jeering?) crowds in the background. I dashed to the TV Guide - no it wasn't, as I thought, that Kevin had taken over from Davina McCall as the Big Brother host; this really was Grand Designs Live. Could you watch it for more than a couple of minutes? I couldn't, and returned to the sun lounger with a cool beer. How the mighty have fallen. Can they fall any further? Only time will tell ...
PS (Added Sunday, May 11)
It's gratifying to see that the TV critics agree ...
196 : First off the mark
Posted Tuesday, May 06, 2008 at 8:21 AM Link
Well ... I'm not sure that an endorsement from an anonymous blogger is going to make one jot of difference, but ... hats off to Andrew Hanson for kick-starting his RIBA Presidential Campaign in the best possible way.
Shortly after making posting [192] I emailed all three candidates suggesting that they might like to nominate (a) the building which they were most proud to have designed and (b) a recent British building which they admired. Both Paul Davis and Ruth Reed have not yet had the courtesy to reply but Andrew Hanson came back to me, quick as flash, with the above image of a courtyard house in Wandsworth for (a), and nominated the Henning Stummel bog extension in Marylebone - see posting [16] - for (b).
Andrew also claims to be a fan of this site, so he must be a good guy, but I still wonder why anyone sensible wants to take on the thankless task of being President of the RIBA.
Posted Tuesday, May 06, 2008 at 8:21 AM
Link
Well ... I'm not sure that an endorsement from an anonymous blogger is going to make one jot of difference, but ... hats off to Andrew Hanson for kick-starting his RIBA Presidential Campaign in the best possible way.Shortly after making posting [192] I emailed all three candidates suggesting that they might like to nominate (a) the building which they were most proud to have designed and (b) a recent British building which they admired. Both Paul Davis and Ruth Reed have not yet had the courtesy to reply but Andrew Hanson came back to me, quick as flash, with the above image of a courtyard house in Wandsworth for (a), and nominated the Henning Stummel bog extension in Marylebone - see posting [16] - for (b).
Andrew also claims to be a fan of this site, so he must be a good guy, but I still wonder why anyone sensible wants to take on the thankless task of being President of the RIBA.
195 : Kevin Mea Culpa
Posted Monday, May 05, 2008 at 9:02 PM Link
So ... Kevin McHead-in-the-Clouds (Copyright Norman Blogster - used with permission, I hope) is beginning to have second thoughts about the effect that Grand Designs is having on UK architecture, is he? In the Daily Telegraph for 29/04/2008 he blames his own programme for encouraging people to build "white box" homes - read the complete article on the [Daily Telegraph] site.
Could it be that Kevin is actually having doubts, or is he just a secret reader of this site - see posting [178]? Come on Channel 4, I think we should be told.
Posted Monday, May 05, 2008 at 9:02 PM
Link
So ... Kevin McHead-in-the-Clouds (Copyright Norman Blogster - used with permission, I hope) is beginning to have second thoughts about the effect that Grand Designs is having on UK architecture, is he? In the Daily Telegraph for 29/04/2008 he blames his own programme for encouraging people to build "white box" homes - read the complete article on the [Daily Telegraph] site.Could it be that Kevin is actually having doubts, or is he just a secret reader of this site - see posting [178]? Come on Channel 4, I think we should be told.
194 : Amanda lovin' it!
Posted Friday, April 25, 2008 at 10:38 AM Link
Posted Friday, April 25, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Link
Amanda Levete in Sunday Times "Style" - April 20, 2008.
[Click the image to read in new window]
[Click the image to read in new window]
193 : John Jessop - PS
Posted Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 5:11 PM Link
The John Jessop story - see Posting [190] on 17 April - has been picked-up by the AJ under the name of Max Thompson - see this [News Posting] - but not until 22 April at 11:47. How strange that someone at EMAP viewed Posting 190 on this site at least eight times in the period leading-up to 11:47 on 22 April. Remember that you read the John Jessop story here first.
PS PS - This story has now been picked-up by ...
Posted Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 5:11 PM
Link
The John Jessop story - see Posting [190] on 17 April - has been picked-up by the AJ under the name of Max Thompson - see this [News Posting] - but not until 22 April at 11:47. How strange that someone at EMAP viewed Posting 190 on this site at least eight times in the period leading-up to 11:47 on 22 April. Remember that you read the John Jessop story here first.
PS PS - This story has now been picked-up by ...
- Daily Mail - 6 May 2008.
- Daily Telegraph - 6 May 2008.
- Mail on Sunday - 6 May 2008 (which is actually a Tuesday).
... but what took them all so long?
192 : President Who?
Posted Monday, April 21, 2008 at 7:54 AM Link
Just as we're all getting thoroughly exhausted with the US Presidential Elections, along comes a process which is even longer - the RIBA Presidential Elections. It seems as if President Sunny P has hardly had his bum on the seat long enough to warm it up before we're off on the race to find his successor. But I'm sure I'm not alone in my immediate reaction to the announcement of the first three presidential hopefuls - who they?
Now they may all be well known to their own particular mafias, but they're hardly household names are they? Indeed, the [BD article] mentions not a single building built by any one of them. Their major claims to fame seem to be the number of committees they've sat on rather than the quality of the buildings they've built, which is a great shame when the RIBA desperately needs a high profile in the public eye. These are internal, navel-gazing, candidates, not people to promote architects and architecture to the masses. Shame.
Posted Monday, April 21, 2008 at 7:54 AM
Link
Just as we're all getting thoroughly exhausted with the US Presidential Elections, along comes a process which is even longer - the RIBA Presidential Elections. It seems as if President Sunny P has hardly had his bum on the seat long enough to warm it up before we're off on the race to find his successor. But I'm sure I'm not alone in my immediate reaction to the announcement of the first three presidential hopefuls - who they?Now they may all be well known to their own particular mafias, but they're hardly household names are they? Indeed, the [BD article] mentions not a single building built by any one of them. Their major claims to fame seem to be the number of committees they've sat on rather than the quality of the buildings they've built, which is a great shame when the RIBA desperately needs a high profile in the public eye. These are internal, navel-gazing, candidates, not people to promote architects and architecture to the masses. Shame.
191 : HO(F)T Fuss
Posted Friday, April 18, 2008 at 11:28 AM Link
All the fuss about the OFT investigation into "price-fixing" has shown, once again, just how little the Government and the lay press really understand about the construction industry. Out have come all those over-used words and phrases like "cartel", "it may have cost the taxpayers billions", and "featherbedding of fat cat construction bosses".
Read these links just for starters (there are hundreds more) :
So let's just examine the allegations in more detail. They all seem to centre around "cover pricing" - when contractors inflate their tender price to ensure that they don't win the contract. They can decide to do this for a variety of reasons, but by far the most common is that they do not want the job but do not wish to "offend" the client by turning-down an invitation to tender. Cover pricing has been a widespread practice for years, particularly in times when the construction industry is over-heated. When tender lists were longer (5, 6, or even more tenderers) the only way that contractors could afford to properly price the work they wanted to do was to decline to tender for work that they didn't want to do. But how do you tell a potential client that you don't want his work? You don't, you put in a cover price.
I've examined many tenders in the past, and it was generally blatantly obvious when firms had put in a "cover". In the good-old-days, when QSs knew what they were doing, it was virtually impossible to (significantly) inflate the tender price so the contractor(s) who wanted the work priced sensibly, and the others "covered". And I very much doubt that the lowest tender price was ever significantly adrift from the QS's estimate. Nowadays, of course, when QSs have ******-all idea about prices, a contractor can easily inflate a tender figure and attribute the rise to "market forces". Also, let's face it, if two firms want the work there's no way that they're going to collude on the prices, and both will tender competitively.
With everyone screaming for an enquiry - and I was sad to see certain luminaries of the architectural establishment joining the screaming (see BD link above) - might I suggest a rather important area for investigation? I'd like to know a lot more about how the tender lists were compiled for the projects being investigated. How many times did contractors decline to tender ('cos they were too busy, or given ludicrously short tender periods), but were then leant-on by commissioning authorities who threatened to exclude them from future lists? How many times did a desperate Architect, QS, or Project Manager have to ring-around and plead with his contractor mates for a cover price because the Government Department, Local Authority, etc. just would not accept that only one contractor was interested in the work?
Somehow I don't believe it's a coincidence that the OFT enquiry was initiated during a construction boom and concentrated on publicly-funded contracts - that's a childishly easy way to get a "result".
Posted Friday, April 18, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Link
All the fuss about the OFT investigation into "price-fixing" has shown, once again, just how little the Government and the lay press really understand about the construction industry. Out have come all those over-used words and phrases like "cartel", "it may have cost the taxpayers billions", and "featherbedding of fat cat construction bosses".
Read these links just for starters (there are hundreds more) :
So let's just examine the allegations in more detail. They all seem to centre around "cover pricing" - when contractors inflate their tender price to ensure that they don't win the contract. They can decide to do this for a variety of reasons, but by far the most common is that they do not want the job but do not wish to "offend" the client by turning-down an invitation to tender. Cover pricing has been a widespread practice for years, particularly in times when the construction industry is over-heated. When tender lists were longer (5, 6, or even more tenderers) the only way that contractors could afford to properly price the work they wanted to do was to decline to tender for work that they didn't want to do. But how do you tell a potential client that you don't want his work? You don't, you put in a cover price.
I've examined many tenders in the past, and it was generally blatantly obvious when firms had put in a "cover". In the good-old-days, when QSs knew what they were doing, it was virtually impossible to (significantly) inflate the tender price so the contractor(s) who wanted the work priced sensibly, and the others "covered". And I very much doubt that the lowest tender price was ever significantly adrift from the QS's estimate. Nowadays, of course, when QSs have ******-all idea about prices, a contractor can easily inflate a tender figure and attribute the rise to "market forces". Also, let's face it, if two firms want the work there's no way that they're going to collude on the prices, and both will tender competitively.
With everyone screaming for an enquiry - and I was sad to see certain luminaries of the architectural establishment joining the screaming (see BD link above) - might I suggest a rather important area for investigation? I'd like to know a lot more about how the tender lists were compiled for the projects being investigated. How many times did contractors decline to tender ('cos they were too busy, or given ludicrously short tender periods), but were then leant-on by commissioning authorities who threatened to exclude them from future lists? How many times did a desperate Architect, QS, or Project Manager have to ring-around and plead with his contractor mates for a cover price because the Government Department, Local Authority, etc. just would not accept that only one contractor was interested in the work?
Somehow I don't believe it's a coincidence that the OFT enquiry was initiated during a construction boom and concentrated on publicly-funded contracts - that's a childishly easy way to get a "result".
Cover-pricing is not price-fixing.
