B******s to Architecture
Occasional irreverent comment on (mainly UK) architecture and architects
267 : B2A is not dead ...
Posted Tuesday, November 17, 2009 at 10:01 PM
Link
... only sleeping, but with no guarantee that he'll ever wake up.
Posted Tuesday, November 17, 2009 at 10:01 PM
Link
... only sleeping, but with no guarantee that he'll ever wake up.
266 : Living the dream?
Posted Monday, November 09, 2009 at 9:49 PM Link
Has anyone else read the AJ's latest series on New Practices with the same growing sense of frustration that I have? The AJ's standard format - see [AJ website] - asks the principals of each practice four standard questions:
Where have you come from? What work do you have and what kind of projects are you looking for? What are your ambitions? How optimistic are you as a start-up practice?
Spot the missing question? Yes, of course, the one we're all thinking but the AJ isn't asking ... the emporer's clothes ... the elephant-in-the-room ... What are you living on? Surely the AJ's reluctance can't be to conceal any embarrassment from the most likely answers: "We've all re-mortgaged our houses but now we're in negative equity." "My parents have re-mortgaged their house and now they're in negative equity." "Luckily my wife/ husband/ partner is a banker." "Granny left me a tidy sum, thank goodness." "The redundancy cheque bought the MacBook Air, but I am a bit worried about next month's electricity bill." Much more interesting than all the parroted archi-bollocks answers to the AJ's standard questions. Come on Kieran, how about it?
Posted Monday, November 09, 2009 at 9:49 PM
Link
Has anyone else read the AJ's latest series on New Practices with the same growing sense of frustration that I have? The AJ's standard format - see [AJ website] - asks the principals of each practice four standard questions:Where have you come from? What work do you have and what kind of projects are you looking for? What are your ambitions? How optimistic are you as a start-up practice?
Spot the missing question? Yes, of course, the one we're all thinking but the AJ isn't asking ... the emporer's clothes ... the elephant-in-the-room ... What are you living on? Surely the AJ's reluctance can't be to conceal any embarrassment from the most likely answers: "We've all re-mortgaged our houses but now we're in negative equity." "My parents have re-mortgaged their house and now they're in negative equity." "Luckily my wife/ husband/ partner is a banker." "Granny left me a tidy sum, thank goodness." "The redundancy cheque bought the MacBook Air, but I am a bit worried about next month's electricity bill." Much more interesting than all the parroted archi-bollocks answers to the AJ's standard questions. Come on Kieran, how about it?
265 : Red Wedge
Posted Saturday, October 17, 2009 at 9:06 PM Link
I'm sure that I'm not the first, and I'm certain that I won't be the last, to comment on the superb irony of Marco Goldschmied handing-over the £20k Stirling Prize cheque to Richard Rogers after all the bad blood between these two archi-luvvies over recent years - through gritted teeth doesn't do it justice, Marco's face looked like thunder at the moment the Channel 4 camera zoomed-in on the rostrum.
A predictable winner? Well ... maybe, despite the bookies favouring Tony Fretton. Taken solely on the Channel 4 filming it was really a contest between the two Roger Stirk Harbour buildings, wasn't it? AHMM's health centre and the Fretton gallery were noble, worthy, and excellent, but not exceptional. Liverpool One was a non-starter (A Stirling Prize to a masterplan? I don't think so.) and Davina had to work really hard to try and find anything good to say about Aldermanbury Square (surely one of the most boring buildings to make the short list in years). The judges couldn't give the prize to the Barajas, sorry Bodegas, winery (We can't have two wavy-roofed buildings in Spain, by the same architect, getting the prize, can we?) so Maggie's Centre it was. Or maybe the jury just decided that we all needed a bit of cheering-up and gave it to the most colourful building and, boy, is that Maggie's Centre colourful.
But, as ever, the male members of the architectural profession showed their total lack of style by dressing in exactly the same clothes that they wear to the office, with zero effort to make the Stirling Prize an "occasion". Only AJ Editor Kieran Long looked remotely stylish although even he was dressed in his weekday best. At least the girls looked like they'd made a bit of an effort for the evening, even the Schoolmarm putting on her best dress and heels to announce the winner. The lads at Channel 4, or was it the producer? or even Kevin? had obviously decided that the show needed livening-up with a bit of a f*** factor to balance all the white-shirted and black-suited men, so the camera, and Kevin, spent rather too long lusting-after the luscious trio of Bernadette Tagliabue, Deborah Saunt, and Sarah Gaventa. Who was Kevin thinking about when he got up-close-and-personal with the naked statue in the Fuglsang Kustmuseum? Will we ever find out?
Posted Saturday, October 17, 2009 at 9:06 PM
Link
I'm sure that I'm not the first, and I'm certain that I won't be the last, to comment on the superb irony of Marco Goldschmied handing-over the £20k Stirling Prize cheque to Richard Rogers after all the bad blood between these two archi-luvvies over recent years - through gritted teeth doesn't do it justice, Marco's face looked like thunder at the moment the Channel 4 camera zoomed-in on the rostrum.A predictable winner? Well ... maybe, despite the bookies favouring Tony Fretton. Taken solely on the Channel 4 filming it was really a contest between the two Roger Stirk Harbour buildings, wasn't it? AHMM's health centre and the Fretton gallery were noble, worthy, and excellent, but not exceptional. Liverpool One was a non-starter (A Stirling Prize to a masterplan? I don't think so.) and Davina had to work really hard to try and find anything good to say about Aldermanbury Square (surely one of the most boring buildings to make the short list in years). The judges couldn't give the prize to the Barajas, sorry Bodegas, winery (We can't have two wavy-roofed buildings in Spain, by the same architect, getting the prize, can we?) so Maggie's Centre it was. Or maybe the jury just decided that we all needed a bit of cheering-up and gave it to the most colourful building and, boy, is that Maggie's Centre colourful.
But, as ever, the male members of the architectural profession showed their total lack of style by dressing in exactly the same clothes that they wear to the office, with zero effort to make the Stirling Prize an "occasion". Only AJ Editor Kieran Long looked remotely stylish although even he was dressed in his weekday best. At least the girls looked like they'd made a bit of an effort for the evening, even the Schoolmarm putting on her best dress and heels to announce the winner. The lads at Channel 4, or was it the producer? or even Kevin? had obviously decided that the show needed livening-up with a bit of a f*** factor to balance all the white-shirted and black-suited men, so the camera, and Kevin, spent rather too long lusting-after the luscious trio of Bernadette Tagliabue, Deborah Saunt, and Sarah Gaventa. Who was Kevin thinking about when he got up-close-and-personal with the naked statue in the Fuglsang Kustmuseum? Will we ever find out?
264 : Barking up the wrong tree
Posted Wednesday, October 14, 2009 at 8:30 AM Link
One of the things that I've never really understood about my fellow archi-professionals is their absolute fascination with the "Design Competition". I know that ad agencies are expected to pitch for new business, and the beauty parade prior to appointment is becoming increasingly common in all professions, but who else would do the bulk of the creative work for free before they even knew if they'd got the job or, more likely, not? Can you imagine a barrister giving a considered opinion on a potential case without payment? Of course you can't. Can you imagine several consultants opening-up a patient and each trying a different treatment before the hospital decided which consultant would perform the operation? No again. Would half-a-dozen accountants go through your books, without payment, just so that you could decide which one was going to save you the most tax? No yet again. So why are architects prepared to do it all for little more than a few column inches in the AJ?
This was brought home to me yet again when the Abbey Green competition filled a substantial part of last weeks AJ - see [this AJ web page]. I couldn't be bothered to count the number of published entries there were so many, and now the lucky(?) six short-listed have got a second opportunity to expend loads of time and effort with an 83.33% chance of failure. So what drives them? Once again it's that monstrous ego fueled by the education system and the archi-press which makes every architect believe that they really are (a) superior to all their fellow architects, and (b) capable of taking-over the world if only they can get that first big break. Is it any wonder that developers, contractors, and Government Departments are expecting more-and-more for less-and-less from the profession when they see how much certain well-known architects are prepared to do for nothing?
And remember that we're not talking about a high-profile national project here, just the opportunity to tart-up, sorry regenerate, a bit of scruffy parkland in a run-down Inner London suburb. Having read the AJ's blurb I'm still not entirely clear why Abbey Green needs a make-over if Barking is already "A place of real East End character and charm" or maybe this is just another way in which the AJ can give over page-after-page to the chosen ones.
PS - On the subject of the chosen ones ... I'm really rooting for either Eric Parry or BDP to win the Stirling Prize just so that I can read all the invective of the Oi Ref! Are you f*****g blind? variety which will inevitably pour out of the archi-mags the following week.
Posted Wednesday, October 14, 2009 at 8:30 AM
Link
One of the things that I've never really understood about my fellow archi-professionals is their absolute fascination with the "Design Competition". I know that ad agencies are expected to pitch for new business, and the beauty parade prior to appointment is becoming increasingly common in all professions, but who else would do the bulk of the creative work for free before they even knew if they'd got the job or, more likely, not? Can you imagine a barrister giving a considered opinion on a potential case without payment? Of course you can't. Can you imagine several consultants opening-up a patient and each trying a different treatment before the hospital decided which consultant would perform the operation? No again. Would half-a-dozen accountants go through your books, without payment, just so that you could decide which one was going to save you the most tax? No yet again. So why are architects prepared to do it all for little more than a few column inches in the AJ?This was brought home to me yet again when the Abbey Green competition filled a substantial part of last weeks AJ - see [this AJ web page]. I couldn't be bothered to count the number of published entries there were so many, and now the lucky(?) six short-listed have got a second opportunity to expend loads of time and effort with an 83.33% chance of failure. So what drives them? Once again it's that monstrous ego fueled by the education system and the archi-press which makes every architect believe that they really are (a) superior to all their fellow architects, and (b) capable of taking-over the world if only they can get that first big break. Is it any wonder that developers, contractors, and Government Departments are expecting more-and-more for less-and-less from the profession when they see how much certain well-known architects are prepared to do for nothing?
And remember that we're not talking about a high-profile national project here, just the opportunity to tart-up, sorry regenerate, a bit of scruffy parkland in a run-down Inner London suburb. Having read the AJ's blurb I'm still not entirely clear why Abbey Green needs a make-over if Barking is already "A place of real East End character and charm" or maybe this is just another way in which the AJ can give over page-after-page to the chosen ones.
PS - On the subject of the chosen ones ... I'm really rooting for either Eric Parry or BDP to win the Stirling Prize just so that I can read all the invective of the Oi Ref! Are you f*****g blind? variety which will inevitably pour out of the archi-mags the following week.
263 : The Voice of Sanity
Posted Tuesday, October 13, 2009 at 8:49 PM Link
No apologies for returning, yet again, to the subject of the OFT Investigation into Cover Pricing. This has been almost totally ignored by the architectural press but not, thank goodness, by Building Magazine which continues to give it the coverage which it richly deserves. Tony Bingham's latest article in last Friday's edition - see [Building website] - is probably the most sensible few hundred words written on the subject so far. The Labour Party has never really understood how the business community works, despite the lip-service paid over the last 12 years, and the OFT's findings are yet another example of a long-term ideological mistrust - we're back to the capitalist-bashing days of Old Labour with a vengeance. I don't think the archi-press have got the faintest idea just how devastating the OFT inquiry and the resulting fines are going to be for the construction industry in general and the procurement of government-funded projects in particular. "I think you ought to know I'm feeling very depressed." (A topical quote for those in the know.)
Posted Tuesday, October 13, 2009 at 8:49 PM
Link
No apologies for returning, yet again, to the subject of the OFT Investigation into Cover Pricing. This has been almost totally ignored by the architectural press but not, thank goodness, by Building Magazine which continues to give it the coverage which it richly deserves. Tony Bingham's latest article in last Friday's edition - see [Building website] - is probably the most sensible few hundred words written on the subject so far. The Labour Party has never really understood how the business community works, despite the lip-service paid over the last 12 years, and the OFT's findings are yet another example of a long-term ideological mistrust - we're back to the capitalist-bashing days of Old Labour with a vengeance. I don't think the archi-press have got the faintest idea just how devastating the OFT inquiry and the resulting fines are going to be for the construction industry in general and the procurement of government-funded projects in particular. "I think you ought to know I'm feeling very depressed." (A topical quote for those in the know.)
262 : Emperor's Clothes 2
Posted Sunday, October 11, 2009 at 2:15 PM Link
Sunday in the recliner catching-up on unread archi-mags, but I nearly choked on my skinny decaf when I got to Page 12 of the latest BD. Just what was Ellis Woodman on when writing his double-page review of Nord's Olympic substation - see [BD online article]? I'd like to think that he was on nothing more than an extra-strong dose of tongue-in-cheek, but I rather suspect not considering the cosy relationship between the archi-press and certain architectural practices, particularly those who've been winners of the ridiculously-over-hyped YAYA awards. This is a eulogy to a thundering great black brick box (or collection of boxes) which has the simplest-ever plan, section, elevation, and near-zero decoration. If it had been designed by EDF's in-house architectural team the journos would have been full of condemnation, if they had bothered to comment at all (which I doubt), but because it was designed by the uber-cool Nord we get this ridiculous adulation. Thank goodness that the BD online readers have beaten me to it with their comments - I was beginning to think I was a voice of one on buildings like this.
Posted Sunday, October 11, 2009 at 2:15 PM
Link
Sunday in the recliner catching-up on unread archi-mags, but I nearly choked on my skinny decaf when I got to Page 12 of the latest BD. Just what was Ellis Woodman on when writing his double-page review of Nord's Olympic substation - see [BD online article]? I'd like to think that he was on nothing more than an extra-strong dose of tongue-in-cheek, but I rather suspect not considering the cosy relationship between the archi-press and certain architectural practices, particularly those who've been winners of the ridiculously-over-hyped YAYA awards. This is a eulogy to a thundering great black brick box (or collection of boxes) which has the simplest-ever plan, section, elevation, and near-zero decoration. If it had been designed by EDF's in-house architectural team the journos would have been full of condemnation, if they had bothered to comment at all (which I doubt), but because it was designed by the uber-cool Nord we get this ridiculous adulation. Thank goodness that the BD online readers have beaten me to it with their comments - I was beginning to think I was a voice of one on buildings like this.
261 : Fair Trade?
Posted Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 7:08 PM Link
Well ... the Office of (so-called) Fair Trading has finally published its findings in the great Cover Pricing 'Scandal' to the glee of the lay press and the hand-wringing of the contractors involved. But even our own beloved Building magazine managed to confuse the issue by using "bid-rigging" and "cover-pricing" in the same breath - they are NOT the same. OK, lets put the six cases of "compensation payments" to one side as (a) clearly illegal and (b) bloody stupid, and consider the dozens of other cases investigated. I must confess that I haven't read every single word published on the subject today, but I've read a lot of them and I'm still struggling to find any significant evidence that any client has actually lost money as a result of this "cover-pricing".
I reckon that the real reason all these reputable contractors got together and arranged cover-price deals was simply to ensure that the lowest tender was at a price that enabled the successful contractor to make just enough profit to stay in business and not get screwed-down to a price that was completely unrealistic. Look at it this way - is any contractor going to willingly let a rival get away with a hugely-inflated tender price which they know they could beat and still make a handsome profit? No, of course they aren't. Cover-pricing is just a way of ensuring that the successful contractor gets the job for a fair price and the others don't lose a fortune in the tendering process.
The fact that so many of the contractors said that they felt they had to submit cover prices (rather than declining to tender) to ensure that they were included on future tender lists is an indication of just how distorted the whole tendering process has become and the Government's evident pleasure in screwing nearly £130m in fines out of the building companies is yet another example of their total failure to understand how the industry works.
When the news was first announced on Radio 4 this morning the news reader had obviously been instructed to "sound surprised" that none of the firms had been banned from tendering for future Government work. Of course none of them have been banned - just look at the list - the Government needs to keep building and banning this lot would have enabled the few companies that weren't fingered to submit sky-high prices in the future. What a complete waste of time and effort and yet another body-blow to a beleaguered industry.
Posted Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 7:08 PM
Link
Well ... the Office of (so-called) Fair Trading has finally published its findings in the great Cover Pricing 'Scandal' to the glee of the lay press and the hand-wringing of the contractors involved. But even our own beloved Building magazine managed to confuse the issue by using "bid-rigging" and "cover-pricing" in the same breath - they are NOT the same. OK, lets put the six cases of "compensation payments" to one side as (a) clearly illegal and (b) bloody stupid, and consider the dozens of other cases investigated. I must confess that I haven't read every single word published on the subject today, but I've read a lot of them and I'm still struggling to find any significant evidence that any client has actually lost money as a result of this "cover-pricing".I reckon that the real reason all these reputable contractors got together and arranged cover-price deals was simply to ensure that the lowest tender was at a price that enabled the successful contractor to make just enough profit to stay in business and not get screwed-down to a price that was completely unrealistic. Look at it this way - is any contractor going to willingly let a rival get away with a hugely-inflated tender price which they know they could beat and still make a handsome profit? No, of course they aren't. Cover-pricing is just a way of ensuring that the successful contractor gets the job for a fair price and the others don't lose a fortune in the tendering process.
The fact that so many of the contractors said that they felt they had to submit cover prices (rather than declining to tender) to ensure that they were included on future tender lists is an indication of just how distorted the whole tendering process has become and the Government's evident pleasure in screwing nearly £130m in fines out of the building companies is yet another example of their total failure to understand how the industry works.
When the news was first announced on Radio 4 this morning the news reader had obviously been instructed to "sound surprised" that none of the firms had been banned from tendering for future Government work. Of course none of them have been banned - just look at the list - the Government needs to keep building and banning this lot would have enabled the few companies that weren't fingered to submit sky-high prices in the future. What a complete waste of time and effort and yet another body-blow to a beleaguered industry.
260 : Conspiracy Theory
Posted Wednesday, September 02, 2009 at 8:48 PM Link
What is it with the fascination for the nasty this year? First we have the upstart, but really rather wonderful, Bad British Architecture blog which after only six months has an enthusiastic following for its regular chronicling of the crass, tedious, or downright appalling. Then we get BD devoting a whole double page spread to their Carbuncle Cup awards, followed rapidly by Stephen Bayley's defence of ugliness in the Times. Well ... we all know that Stephen just loves to be controversial, but he's clearly tapped the zeitgeist with this one.
There are subtle differences in approach. Stephen makes a clear distinction between the ugly and the boring, whereas BAD "celebrates" both, and the Carbuncle Cup seems to hover somewhere in the middle - is the QMU campus by Dyer Associates really ugly, or just boring? Whatever, B2A was delighted to see Make's truly dreadful building at Nottingham University - see Posting [228] - in the Carbuncle shortlist although I think it should have beaten the Liverpool Terminal to the top award for the sole reason that we're all entitled to expect a lot more from the saintly Ken.
But why devote so much time and effort to slagging-off bad architecture? Could this be a conspiracy to soften us all up in preparation for the results of the Stirling Prize? With one of the most disappointing, yet at the same time controversial, shortlists for many years there are only two possible archi-media reactions to the result - outrage (if BDP or Eric Parry win) or a big yawn (if any of the other four win). If these are the six buildings (and no comments about masterplans not being buildings) "of most significance for the evolution of architecture" in the past year, then we really are in a very sorry state.
Q. How do you make this years Stirling Prize shortlist look interesting?
A. Bombard us with crap for weeks beforehand - then anything quarter-decent will look prize-worthy.
Posted Wednesday, September 02, 2009 at 8:48 PM
Link
What is it with the fascination for the nasty this year? First we have the upstart, but really rather wonderful, Bad British Architecture blog which after only six months has an enthusiastic following for its regular chronicling of the crass, tedious, or downright appalling. Then we get BD devoting a whole double page spread to their Carbuncle Cup awards, followed rapidly by Stephen Bayley's defence of ugliness in the Times. Well ... we all know that Stephen just loves to be controversial, but he's clearly tapped the zeitgeist with this one.There are subtle differences in approach. Stephen makes a clear distinction between the ugly and the boring, whereas BAD "celebrates" both, and the Carbuncle Cup seems to hover somewhere in the middle - is the QMU campus by Dyer Associates really ugly, or just boring? Whatever, B2A was delighted to see Make's truly dreadful building at Nottingham University - see Posting [228] - in the Carbuncle shortlist although I think it should have beaten the Liverpool Terminal to the top award for the sole reason that we're all entitled to expect a lot more from the saintly Ken.
But why devote so much time and effort to slagging-off bad architecture? Could this be a conspiracy to soften us all up in preparation for the results of the Stirling Prize? With one of the most disappointing, yet at the same time controversial, shortlists for many years there are only two possible archi-media reactions to the result - outrage (if BDP or Eric Parry win) or a big yawn (if any of the other four win). If these are the six buildings (and no comments about masterplans not being buildings) "of most significance for the evolution of architecture" in the past year, then we really are in a very sorry state.
Q. How do you make this years Stirling Prize shortlist look interesting?
A. Bombard us with crap for weeks beforehand - then anything quarter-decent will look prize-worthy.
259 : Noses in the trough?
Posted Friday, August 28, 2009 at 8:00 AM Link
Could the AJ's eulogistic review of The Forge and Caponata in Camden - see [here] - have anything to do with its close proximity to the AJ offices? Nice as it may be, it's no substitute for the wonderful Delancey Cafe which stood on the same site for many years - of fond memory to those of us who spent too much time in our formative years in that late-lamented Camden institution.
PS [2 Sep] - Whoa! This little post hit a few raw nerves. Names withheld to protect the guilty, but you know who you are.
Posted Friday, August 28, 2009 at 8:00 AM
Link
Could the AJ's eulogistic review of The Forge and Caponata in Camden - see [here] - have anything to do with its close proximity to the AJ offices? Nice as it may be, it's no substitute for the wonderful Delancey Cafe which stood on the same site for many years - of fond memory to those of us who spent too much time in our formative years in that late-lamented Camden institution.PS [2 Sep] - Whoa! This little post hit a few raw nerves. Names withheld to protect the guilty, but you know who you are.
258 : Down the pan?
Posted Thursday, August 27, 2009 at 7:15 AM Link
Returning from a thoroughly undeserved holiday, I'm awakened by the dulcet tones of President Sunny P on Radio 4. Has something momentous happened whilst I've been away? Has M'Lord Rogers been sent to the Tower? Is Robert Adam the new Archbishop of Canterbury? Oh no, nothing so important. Sunny P was having another 5 minutes of fame (which means he's had his 15 now) commenting on the RIBA's ridiculous Public Toilet Competition.
But being the President he had, of course, to find positive things to say about all five entries and I did, just for a minute, think that he must have had special tuition at the Alastair Campbell School-of-Spin to come up with some of the bollocks that we were forced to listen to. But the oh-so-predictable list of the RIBA's Chosen Ones ensured that yet another Institute PR exercise fell flat on its face. We're in the middle of the worst crisis for the profession in living memory and the President goes on the country's most influential radio programme for another bout of what he terms "being playful" - see Posting [256]. This is a man clearly in demob-mode and oblivious to the damage which he's inflicting on the profession as he shuffles off into his own personal sunset.
Four of the five designs are beyond-ridiculous, and one beyond-boring, but you can see the BBC's take on them [here]. I was sorely tempted to send the Beeb a ranting "Comment" but didn't waste my energy knowing that all really negative stuff is always moderated-out. The RIBA's official announcement is [here]. Will Joe Public Convenience ever take us seriously again?
Posted Thursday, August 27, 2009 at 7:15 AM
Link
Returning from a thoroughly undeserved holiday, I'm awakened by the dulcet tones of President Sunny P on Radio 4. Has something momentous happened whilst I've been away? Has M'Lord Rogers been sent to the Tower? Is Robert Adam the new Archbishop of Canterbury? Oh no, nothing so important. Sunny P was having another 5 minutes of fame (which means he's had his 15 now) commenting on the RIBA's ridiculous Public Toilet Competition.But being the President he had, of course, to find positive things to say about all five entries and I did, just for a minute, think that he must have had special tuition at the Alastair Campbell School-of-Spin to come up with some of the bollocks that we were forced to listen to. But the oh-so-predictable list of the RIBA's Chosen Ones ensured that yet another Institute PR exercise fell flat on its face. We're in the middle of the worst crisis for the profession in living memory and the President goes on the country's most influential radio programme for another bout of what he terms "being playful" - see Posting [256]. This is a man clearly in demob-mode and oblivious to the damage which he's inflicting on the profession as he shuffles off into his own personal sunset.
Four of the five designs are beyond-ridiculous, and one beyond-boring, but you can see the BBC's take on them [here]. I was sorely tempted to send the Beeb a ranting "Comment" but didn't waste my energy knowing that all really negative stuff is always moderated-out. The RIBA's official announcement is [here]. Will Joe Public Convenience ever take us seriously again?
