Negroni Talks: Recent Episodes
Fourthspace
Provocative and irreverent architectural talk series hosted in East London by Straight Talking Architecture Practice Fourth_space
Architects don’t just design buildings, they also ‘craft narratives’ to help explain them. Storytelling and the art of telling a good story plays an important role in successfully getting permissions and selling ideas to clients. This frequently involves some weird and wonderful language that pushes the boundaries of believability and comprehension, in both fellow professionals and the wider public. An eagerness to describe projects as a great thing for everyone can often make claims that buildings are reinventing typologies and reshaping human behaviour. Add the fairy dust of PR spin into the mix and you have a perfect storm of bold claims and obfuscation. But what of the media? Are they immune from the puff and self-promotion, or are they complicit in a world of transactional communications? It seems that the answer is a little of both, as resources are stretched and journalist numbers dwindle in an ever-encroaching world of automation and low fees. Can the critic truly criticise without the proper backing of their media-empire owners? Should we critique the level of criticism? How investigative is journalism? Who and what gets promoted and why? Architects expend huge amounts of energy on their projects and naturally seek to gain as much coverage as possible to help bolster their reputation and secure new business. However, not everything can get published and practices are often met by a wall of resounding silence when pushing their work out there. In a visual and aesthetically driven world, it can seem that striking shapes and colours will pretty much guarantee exposure over social purpose, spatial subtlety and less obvious agendas.Questions remain about how successfully the architectural press furthers the understanding of building design and elicits emotional connections with its audience. Furthermore, who is that audience and how much of an attempt is there to connect with those outside the architectural community in the arena of our broader cultural landscape?Architecture and the media co-exist in a dysfunctional relationship. Should we forget traditional modes of publication and look toward more immediate and engaging platforms such as TikTok or Instagram? What happens when the only reporting on buildings comes from the makers and not those trained to see through the bullshit? Speakers: Rob Fiehn (Chair) Oliver Wainwright, The GuardianCarolyn Larkin, Caro Communications Nyima Murry, writer and filmmaker Patrick Lynch, Lynch Architects and all others who want to contribute….
Architects don’t just design buildings, they also ‘craft narratives’ to help explain them. Storytelling and the art of telling a good story plays an important role in successfully getting permissions and selling ideas to clients. This frequently involves some weird and wonderful language that pushes the boundaries of believability and comprehension, in both fellow professionals and the wider public. An eagerness to describe projects as a great thing for everyone can often make claims that buildings are reinventing typologies and reshaping human behaviour. Add the fairy dust of PR spin into the mix and you have a perfect storm of bold claims and obfuscation. But what of the media? Are they immune from the puff and self-promotion, or are they complicit in a world of transactional communications? It seems that the answer is a little of both, as resources are stretched and journalist numbers dwindle in an ever-encroaching world of automation and low fees. Can the critic truly criticise without the proper backing of their media-empire owners? Should we critique the level of criticism? How investigative is journalism? Who and what gets promoted and why? Architects expend huge amounts of energy on their projects and naturally seek to gain as much coverage as possible to help bolster their reputation and secure new business. However, not everything can get published and practices are often met by a wall of resounding silence when pushing their work out there. In a visual and aesthetically driven world, it can seem that striking shapes and colours will pretty much guarantee exposure over social purpose, spatial subtlety and less obvious agendas.Questions remain about how successfully the architectural press furthers the understanding of building design and elicits emotional connections with its audience. Furthermore, who is that audience and how much of an attempt is there to connect with those outside the architectural community in the arena of our broader cultural landscape?Architecture and the media co-exist in a dysfunctional relationship. Should we forget traditional modes of publication and look toward more immediate and engaging platforms such as TikTok or Instagram? What happens when the only reporting on buildings comes from the makers and not those trained to see through the bullshit? Speakers: Rob Fiehn (Chair) Oliver Wainwright, The GuardianCarolyn Larkin, Caro Communications Nyima Murry, writer and filmmaker Patrick Lynch, Lynch Architects and all others who want to contribute….
Do we think that architects are fit-for-purpose in the 21st century? The world is seemingly changing at an incredibly rapid pace, with the needs of clients and society in a state of constant flux. Strangely, it seems that both practice and education remain largely static however, we now know that the manner in which we have been taught to be architects in the last 30 years, is maybe no longer good enough. Architects historically took on a ‘master builder’ role which saw the profession in a much more central position to the conception of the masterplanning, design and construction phases of building projects. This role has been sidelined in recent decades, with the architect becoming just another name in a long list of consultants, so should architects accept this diminished role and become specialists within certain areas of design, or should they try to defend their place at the top table of key decision making? Would the latter maybe include relinquishing control over those petty details that architects like to fetishise so much over, and instead focus upon the elephant in the room, which is a lack of business acumen, adaptability, political and financial influence. The background setting for many of these debates is the climate emergency, and a lot of students are coming out of university with little to no desire to build anything at all. Furthermore, it can be seen that having real influence and control within the building industry sits more with clients or project management and so many are moving across into these kind of roles. Will we see a brain drain from traditional architectural practice? How then do we produce architects that can set up more dynamic types of architectural companies/ businesses and what kind of architects would this need? How do architects lead more to bring about much needed change and determine a more progressive built environment? We must ask if we’re preparing young architects for a complex, ever-changing future and whether it is too late to teach old dogs new tricks for existing practitioners?Speakers: Karen Willey, Always Thinking (Chair) Nick Searl, ArgentLara Kinneir, London Interdisciplinary School Chris Williamson, Weston Williamson Amrit Seera, Vabel Daniel Poku-Davies, Ourspaceukand all others who want to particpate…..
Sir John Soane built Pitzhanger Manor at a time when Ealing was considered a nice location to have a ‘country retreat’. Things have obviously moved on since 1804 and in 2024 the house can be found sitting within the hustle and bustle of the Broadway – featuring shops, restaurants, offices and 200+ years’ worth of speculative residential developments. Soane wouldn’t recognise Ealing of the 21st century, however he did understand how to create a vision and sell ideas about ‘what could be’ to his patrons. It is an interesting context in which to consider what future plans there are for the further development of the local area, and how the powers that be may draw on the past in order to do so, in a manner that the great architect himself would have done?With the arrival of a HS2 station site and the associated redevelopment planned for Old Oak Common and Park Royal, the London Borough of Ealing is now facing more immediate change than it has done for a long time. How will this work with existing communities and how will it impact on the identity of the area? With the local council recently bidding to be London borough of culture in 2025, questions around what Ealing has been, currently is and can become, seem all the more poignant.Soane was a master of creating modern mythologies, whilst having a sensitivity toward ideas of loss and rebirth. His domestic architecture is engaged with evocative ideas about space and time, and a sensitive crafting of personal spaces that display grandeur, yet retain a distinct intimacy. In creating a localised world within the world, the manor house and its orchestrated surrounding landscape is also expansive in its outlook, referencing other cultures with an ever-present awareness/sense of ‘the eternal'.The collaboration between Negroni Talks and Pitzhanger, came out of a feeling that the fates were somewhat aligned with the recent arrival at the Pitzhanger of prints from the Soane Collection, that recorded the vibrantly coloured roman frescos in the C2nd Villa Negroni in Rome. To bring the “Negroni Talks…!” to such prestigious architectural surroundings was too good an opportunity to miss and aligned perfectly with our ongoing desire to get new perspectives away from East london - so what better than to go to the west.It seems fitting to host a talk about Ealing’s future development in the timeless atmosphere of an important piece of local, national and international heritage.Speakers: Fourth_space (Chair) Eleanor Fawcett, Old Oak and Park Royal Development CorporationNatalie Campbell MBE, social entrepreneur and broadcaster Peter Fink, artistWilliam Filmer-Sankey, Alan Baxter Associates
We’re living in housing crisis, and apparently a loneliness epidemic with everyone shut away doing their own thing behind closed doors. Surely the answer to this is for human beings to move away from the isolationism of their personal pursuits in property, and head back to what human civilisation has always been about, namely sharing resources and, most importantly, space. The public realm traditionally offers a natural setting to promote this ‘sharing’, but can the privacy of the domestic domain also do so in practice? Co-living (different to co-housing) is a relatively new foray for the UK residential market and it borrows many of the elements of the co-working model. The visionary rhetoric around it states that it addresses affordability, flexibility and provides an advantageous social way of living. But with private rooms and shared everything else, who is this model of housing aimed at and what is it like to live in?In a post-pandemic world of cost inflation, pressure on budgets and profiteering in equal measure, it’s not hard to see that once the calculators come out, co-living is an attractive proposition for developers to double the number of inhabitants by halving the unit size. This in turn calls into the question the roles of architects, planners and the basic space standards that have been established as a matter of decency over the past few decades. Anyone who has lived in a converted Victorian terraced house share, knows of co-living as a mixed experience. In turn, some of the early co-living developments gave the typology a bad name, however, as with all building types, there will of course be good and bad examples. Co-living projects seem to continue springing up in cities across Europe and other parts of the world, and in some cases these seem like a genuine attempt to reduce the costs of city-centre living. Whilst the scale and number of proposals could be called into question, as can the future flexibility of the new buildings being created, there is may be potential for it to be a model of living that is helpful in the drive toward more adaptive reuse of existing buildings, which is good for the broader environment. So, does co-living represent a new ideal for our urban environment or is it a cynical tactic within the latest ‘gold rush’ to maximise profits from valuable land? Speakers: Rob Fiehn (Chair) Amy Frearson, author and journalistDamien Sharkey, HUB Je Ahn, Studio Weave Gil Eaton, Third Revolution Projects Simon Bayliss, HTA Design
You’re an architect until you die, it’s a vocation and not a job. At least, that’s what some people would have you believe, with starchitects continuing to design well into their 90’s and succession plans drawn up to keep their practices going after they have left this mortal coil. Meanwhile, newly qualified architects emerging from years of study are met with a culture of “welcome to the real world ” at an age where others in music, fashion, film, and the arts generally, are already shaping the culture of their time through work that is often promoted as being ‘progressive’ and therefore ‘good business’.It’s easy to see why the knowledgeable and experienced safe pair of hands would be attractive to a Building Industry that is extremely risk averse. Speculation is more often financial than about generating new ideas, so what does this mean for experimentation and pushing boundaries? Optics and Opportunity seem to play a huge role in the perception of Age in Architecture. You can still be considered a young architect well into your 40’s and whilst some ‘emerging and new’ practices are hired to sprinkle some exciting fairy dust on a project, to be consistently considered for significant schemes of a serious scale, you still need to be thought of as a larger and more established player. As with many areas of our culture, should we be worried that there is an incumbent generation that seems to dominate most of the impactful opportunities and commissions, which leaves younger people on the fringes feeling disenfranchised with a clear message that “you are good enough when you are old enough.”Additionally, there also seems to be a real generation gap forming within the architectural community itself, particularly when it comes to concerns surrounding the climate, inequality, social justice and housing, which primarily affect younger generations. Are those practitioners formed by the C20th, fully committed to addressing these issues with the requisite urgency, vigour and alternative thinking required in the C21st? As a profession, where most seem to be passionate about the potential of architecture to improve people’s lives through progressive thinking, how do we better harness the idealism of youth with the experience / knowledge that comes with age, so that it can do so more often? Speakers:Rob Fiehn (chair) Sarah Wigglesworth, ArchitectDennis Austin, Daab Design Bushra Mohamed, Msoma ArchitectsAdithya David Premraj, Serie Architects Neil Pinder, HomeGrown Plusamongst others…
The Barbican is under siege! This might seem to be a natural and unremarkable occurrence for a medieval fortified outpost. However, the Barbican in question is a mixed-use residential and cultural complex within the City of London. Home to cinemas, concert halls, the LSO and over 4000 residents, it is also an international symbol of 'modern architecture' and a unique estate within the financial heart of London’s square mile. With its bold forms, spatial variety/complexity and an attention to materials/design detail, it is feted by architectural enthusiasts from around the world, who flock to take pictures and enjoy the activities inside, while TikTok makers dance around the elevated walkways for their followers.But there is now a new brutalism in town. You might think that this paragon of utopian design and example of volte-face grade II listing, would be protected by its landlords. However, surrounded on all sides and increasingly overshadowed by encroaching commercial developments, this civic landscape feels under attack, with developers circling the ramparts looking for areas to storm and pieces they can occupy. One such skirmish, is the strategic outpost of Bastion House and the old Museum of London. Soon to be vacant, these have been branded defunct and earmarked for demolition, in favour of yet another series of investor driven glass blocks that have become the dominating form of building. It seems that form does only follow finance.As a cultural citadel in the face of a commercial city, this then is an extreme example of a battle that is being fought in towns and cities across the country (and indeed globally). But does it have to be this way? We know that we can’t lay old buildings to waste like we have done historically, and architects responsible for intelligent retrofit projects are now celebrated as part of a new vanguard. With a strong local opposition to the proposed annexing of these buildings at the Barbican, wouldn’t it make more sense to consider a way to reuse them and ensure they are brought back into the fold as a reinvigorated part of the neighbour hood rather than become a trophy asset, looted and taken over for profiteering?The outcome, could well set a dangerous precedent for key parts of our twentieth century heritage….Speakers:Helen Barrett, journalist (chair) Robert Elms, broadcasterTyler Goodwin, Seaforth Land Dr Ruth Lang, Design Museum Future ObservatoryJan-Marc Petroschka and Barbican Quarter Actionamongst others…
One headphone out, keys in hand and checking the street behind you is a familiar experience for a lot of people on their way home, particularly women and those from marginalised groups. And these feelings are not purely anecdotal, as a recent report from the fitness app Strava revealed that UK women are twice as likely to feel unsafe on a run when compared to the global average. In a similar vein, Arup’s Queering Public Spaces study showed that many LGBTQ+ people feel they have to switch or hide their identities when entering a public space or avoid particular areas altogether. How did one of the richest nations on the planet end up with cities that terrify their occupants, particularly once the sun sets?It’s clear we need a rethink of how we shape the cities of the future if they are to be truly inclusive places. Those in law enforcement who are meant to protect the public have been found wanting on a number of occasions in the last few years for instance. And state-funded campaigns often seen to place the onus on keeping safe with the vulnerable themselves. So the question is who should be designing our urban landscapes when it has clearly gone so badly for so long? Does profit affect safety when we prioritise endless housing over the creation of mixed-use developments with an abundance of life and fewer dark streets? How do we make sure that everyone feels responsible for tackling fear and not just those we suffer from it? And how much of a case can be made for our cities maintaining a degree of unpredictability: after all a lot of us who have moved from smaller settlements to the ‘big city’ did so with the intention of making the most of the frisson of unknown excitement that comes with collectively living with large numbers of strangers?From the spray can to the development plan, there are tactics to raise awareness and shine a light (sometimes literally) on the problem. We need to gather solutions and challenge a system that is clearly broken for the most vulnerable in society.Speakers:Helen Parton (chair) PFarah Benis, FFA Security Group & Catcalls of LondonHanna Benihoud, Artist Deborah Saunt, DSDHA Martyn Evans, LandsecU+I Sarah Ackland, PhD researcher, muf architecture/art amongst others….On the night….
Mods or Trads? History and Histrionics In ArchitectureAccording to social media, we are in the middle of a culture war for both the past and future of architecture. Lines have been drawn and tribes are assembling on a beach with the tide coming in. On one side we have groups that want to protect our modernist heritage and seem to enjoy high-quality contemporary architecture. On the other is a growing collective that extoll the virtues of traditional aesthetics, often following a stylistic approach to buildings based on historical and classical principles and proportions.Of course, the reality is much more nuanced, complex and intertwined. The challenge of creating decent cities is highly political and wedded to the constraints and opportunities of financing, and there is the small matter of public opinion. However, it is important that we don’t dismiss the debates raging about preservation, adaptation and the creation of new buildings. The vast majority of people seem to be united by a desire to make places and spaces that are pleasant to live in, with much agreement on maintaining a sense of humanism in our built environment, making architecture that people can relate to, as well as protecting the natural world wherever possible.This discussion allows us the opportunity to consider the very definition of ‘tradition’ in architecture, especially when you consider that modernism is now 100 years old! Why are places whose identities are tied to post-war building programmes and ‘brutalism’ still viewed as the antithesis to our concept of 'the historic’ and ‘heritage’? In being 25 years into a new millennium, within a multicultural, inter-generational society, what does ‘heritage’ mean anyway? Whose heritage are we talking about and at what point do we draw lines on a timeline of style? Ultimately, does it matter what a building looks like on the outside if the people inside are happy and healthy?Speakers:RF HW & TCS (chair) Cath Slessor, Twentieth Century SocietyRobert Adam, Robert Adam Consultancy Ltd David Kohn, David Kohn Architects Selasi Setufe, Be FirstNick amongst others….
We’ve seen hemp houses and walls made of rammed earth, rammed stone and anything else you can ‘ram’. Timber has designers drooling at the mention of the word and there was even a show about straw last year that had architects queuing round the block. There is a huge appetite for a ‘return to the natural’ with ‘new’ (maybe old!) and exciting building materials, however, the practical implementation of these at a scale that will actually make a difference seems at present negligible. The built environment is still dominated by the big three materials of the 20th century, namely glass, steel and concrete, with powerful political lobbyists protecting a material supply chain that is resistant to change. Is this symptomatic of a lack of progressive thinking, imagination, outdated regulation or simply a problem of delivering at scale across different building typologies? Is there a case for a system that takes the best of each material that creates a hybridised system, mixing the best elements of natural and man-made products? For instance, stone buildings have long relied on huge amounts of steel. There are many hurdles to overcome. Progressive materials come with their own ecological issues and they don’t fit into a world dictated by fire regulations and insurance companies. Maybe we will be forced to think of materials as transient, moving from building to building with their own passports. Or could we justify something carbon intensive if it provides us a frame within which we could infill with materials grown on a farm or even a lab. And what of ubiquitous use of glass in the future, unless of course we are happy to simply have smaller windows? The debate on building materials can be polarising in the extreme, but it’s high time we made some concrete plans for more intelligent design and construction. Or perhaps we just can’t see the wood for the trees….Speakers: Vanessa Norwood, Curator / Cultural Strategist (Chair) Joe Giddings, Built by Nature Elaine Toogood, The Concrete Centre Paul Duggan, Elliot Wood Bola Ogunmefun, Tisserin Engineers Ltd
How many times have we heard the phrase “race to the bottom” when it comes to architects discussing fees and design quality. With practices closing their doors and citing the undercutting of their fees as a key factor, competition seems to have defeated camaraderie and we have to ask if the profession is eating itself? We want clients (both public and private) to respect the quality that an architect can bring to a project, but how can we do that when we don’t respect ourselves? Now that we’re in a ‘cost of living crisis’ and material prices are rising around the world, we are told that profit margins are tighter than ever. But the architect’s fee is often a drop in the ocean compared to the rest of a project’s budget, and is it not the case that a really good quality design can actually save money (and time) if an open-minded person with experience and knowledge is leading the process from an early stage? It is also depressing to see a public sector that places such a large emphasis on fees in their tendering processes, which surely signals to architects how they are valued and how best to win work by incentivising them to Go Low or instead Go Home!How can we alter the perception of the ‘architect’ so that people recognise design is worth investing in? How can we communicate to the architectural profession that you’re not doing yourself any favours by charging a fee drastically lower than your fellow architects? And what of the organisations and royal institutions set up to protect and promote architects, architecture and schools of architecture? Would a change to both the curriculum in education and a legislative return to the mandatory fee scale in practice, produce a future with architects having a less immature approach to business and an environment whereby the best designs and not the lowest fees become a new benchmark?In a world where creativity has increasingly become complicit with a controlling commercialism, how should architects better protect the spirit and ideas that can be upheld by progressive building design, as well as themselves and each other as a local, regional, national and global community?Speakers:Angharad Palmer, Landsec Britta Siggelkow, THINK:BUILDEleanor Jolliffe, Allies and Morrison London Practice Forum amongst others….
Having provoked debates interrogating all things “Architectural” from its base in east London, “Negroni talks…!” is hitting the road to discover how the Politics Of Architecture plays out in other parts of the UK. Heading North, South, East and West, The Negroni Talks On the Road Tour aims to hold ‘4 talks in 4 towns’, taking a look at what’s happening on the ground by focusing on local factors that shape the built environment, and what this means for it’s inhabitants. In overview, the Series presents essentially the same discussion in each of the places visited. This repetition is a means to spotlight differences, but also those areas of similarity between urban environments to make comparisons at a national scale. The fabric of each village, town and city across the land stands as a witness to the fallibility of decision-making where private agendas and the public interest collide. Recording the passage of time in material forms, every built landscape provides its own version of a common history - namely the cause and effect impact that buildings and property have as a political player. The talk series poses a series of questions to prompt the discussions:Process: Building is a simple act with an abundance of complexities. What are the fundamental flaws in the current overall system by which buildings are created? Planning: A broken system suffering from a distinct lack of vision? Does it address need and if so whose? As a reactive body, does it have the ability, the will, or the funding to ensure that beyond the concerns of the individual, there is a grander master plan? Policy: Is there a lack of assertiveness, a lack of confidence, a lack of knowledge or a lack of ideas on how to carefully harness market forces for the common good?Permission: Who decides? Are the interests & the imagination of those who say yes or no, broad enough? Playing the game: Who sets the rules and is breaking them the only way to build what is really needed?Procurement: Finance tends to dominate discussions about delivery and determines (and often limits) the scope of what is possible? So, what of our ambition? What could be? Potential: Where and how is it being wasted?Place-making: Can new buildings offer a necessary variety so that they serve all demographics in society and assist in creating more collective spirited communities in the future? Progressiveness: How do you create processes where quality and invention are expected and not hoped for?Performance: How do you ensure that all buildings contribute socially & environmentally? Past Problems: The built environment offers lessons on mistakes made. It illustrates what works, what has time proven longevity and where ideas/experiments have failed. With the benefit of hindsight, are we clear in what we are doing and what we need to avoid? Purpose: What is the point of building? Should we ask this before we do anything?Planet: Can ‘development opportunity’ become redefined so that new building is allied more with existing built fabric?Power: How can heritage, identity and representation be used positively to decentralize, diversify and empower?Politics: Despite the posturing and of our politicians and the promotion of Britain as ‘Great’, are our built environments blighted by a national malaise and if so what can be done to overcome this?
Absurdity In ArchitectureWhen you think about it, Architecture is quite absurd. The importance placed upon the differences between one building design and another, the dedication to detail, the careful choreography and the assertions of taste and quality, all seem to be on a different planet when one looks up at the huge global issues that confront us. The time and energy, the resources spent on the particularity of a design's development, feels somewhat self-centred, myopic and at a remove from the issues of the larger world beyond. So too the nobility with which the profession regards itself, the award winning credibility, the multiple skill-sets, the being seen to do the right thing all wrapped up in standard issue PR parlance. What persists is a certainty and conviction with which an architectural design is declared as being the right answer, the correct response, irrespective of how misplaced history often proves such claims to be. Architects belong to a list of professions, and along with lawyers and doctors it takes the longest time to qualify for, so you might think that the job is solid, respected and agenda setting. However, getting work to support any practice is basically a shot in the dark. Fees are embarrassingly low. Planning decisions are made on the political whims of elected officials. Clients commission what they want a design to be rather than enquiring what is possible/best. The contractor has come to design architecture as much as the architect. And let’s not get started on cost consultants.With all of the increasing uncertainty, we seem to have pulled up a seat at the Mad Hatter’s tea party. We find ourselves stuck in/out of our time, knowing that we are no longer what the profession once was, but with no clear idea of how we should really be going forward. Rather than entertain the nonsense and riddles, would it not be better that we steered the conversation towards an examination of what are we all doing and why?Speakers:Jason Sayer, Architecture Today (chair) Sean Griffiths, Professor of Architecture Cath Slessor, Twentieth Century SocietyNisha Kurian, London Borough of Tower Hamlets Dan Burr, Sheppard Robson amongst others….
Decency By DesignWhat does it mean to be an ethical architect? Is it about the way you run an architectural practice, the type of work you produce, the people you work for? They say that ‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions’ and whilst we’re seeing a growing trend of practices becoming B-Corps, does that mean you’re a ‘decent’ company? With the de-regulatory drive to relax the rules and make permitted development easier, the sheer scale of the Post Grenfell cladding crisis, along with recent headline-grabbing ‘scandals’ about the impact upon people having to live in mold and damp infested homes, we really have to think about what buildings are saying to the general public about contemporary standards and the role of the architect. When buildings start to kill people, something has gone terribly wrong with our sense of humanity. Is the architectural profession an ethically motivated defender of values, or complicit with those profiteering off our collective low standards of living? It seems that the powers that be are mostly interested in quick fixes by whatever means necessary, as envisioned by the political brainwave that empty offices and shops can be converted to help solve the national housing problem. The results could very well foster a new wave of rachman-esque modern-day slums, so what protections remain, and who are the guardians of them? There could be potential opportunities for sensitive and intelligent projects that could help reinvigorate cities, which might be achieved much quicker than going through the red tape of traditional approval processes. Could this be the time for architects to actively lead a movement to create innovative schemes that benefit the local community, or is it just another moment where they will remain a facilitator in the destruction of social value? Developers are always looking for the maximum return on their investments, but their architects should also try to promote decency within regeneration projects and help protect those most affected by changes to our built environments throughout the country. At this moment it remains unclear which way things will go, however, are there simple solutions that could fix several problematic issues in one fell swoop? Speakers:Rob Fiehn (chair) Alasdair Ben dixon, Collective WorksSanaa Shaikh, Native Studio Emma Osmundsen, Sixty Bricks Jerry Tate, Tate + Coamongst others….
Negroni Talk #S7 - FROM HERO TO (NET)ZERO: Carbon FootprintsWe are in a climate emergency and the built environment contributes 30-40% of the world’s carbon emissions. We have to do something about this and seemingly some governments across the world have belatedly recognised the collective need for us to head towards a net-zero future. Ok, so there’s a plan and we all know what we’re doing, right, but can someone explain clearly what net-zero actually means? Also does the whole tree planting/off-setting thing really work? It’s just that recently there have been a series of news articles exposing suspicions that it’s all bullshit…. As always action will speak louder than words in a world still wedded to processes/materials with high levels of embodied carbon and standard issue PR about ‘being sustainable'. We’re playing a dangerous game with the environment with the 'reality-check’ of carbon neutrality being the only player. How can we make sustainable strategies effective and what happens when political policies change the rules while we’re playing? What can we do to make sure that there is a long-term strategy for the planet, whilst making places for us to live and raise our kids? Speakers:George Morgan (chair) Matt Bell, Heatherwick StudioTara Gbolade, Gbolade Design Studio Jonathan Fashanu, Studio Dash Mitakshi Sirsi, Broadway Malyanamongst others….
Talking Shit! DRAIN AGEStone Age... Iron Age... we are now living through the Drain Age...Regular news reports of flash flooding showing homes filled with filthy water suggest that our treatment of water maybe based upon suspect principles. The mounting evidence is that our ‘interventions’ within the natural world are more and more frequently coming back to bite us in our cities, towns and villages. Is architecture a key factor in our divorce from reality? We put bleach in water, and we drink the water. Man-made fat-bergs cause sewers to back up and the pressures put on pipes appears to coincide with the shameless profiteering that comes with pumping raw sewage into our wildlife, watercourses and seas.We should ask ourselves what and where we are building. Flood plains made rigid by acres of tarmac and paved hard landscape leave water with nowhere to run except funneled down into hidden tubes that lead ‘somewhere else’.What is out of sight, remains out of mind.We also have to look inside and question the impact within buildings. Architects and designers seem stuck in a tug or war between consultants, subcontractors, and the estate agents doctrine of the ensuite 2nd bathroom, where the volumetric space in which people are to live comes in second. Rooms seem required to work around the unmovable obstacles of the service pipe and its associated boxing out. Water, so vital to life itself, is in its cyclical nature the most recyclable of resources, so what of its use and its waste? For millennia, humankind lived more humbly amidst nature. Buildings tend to create comfort and convenience by ‘protecting’ us from the elements, but in the landscape of the future can they play a greater role and a more holistic approach to health and sustainability?Speakers:Dave Hill, OnLondon (chair) Dr Julia King, London School of EconomicsAndy Downey, Elliot Wood Katharina Erne, HTA DesignMichael Judd, Hawkins\Brownamongst others….
‘Affordable’ : The Problem With Affordable HousingIn the age of austerity 'affordable housing' is heralded as a basic requirement for new build housing schemes, with any project that doesn't deliver at least a small quota being crucified in the press. But when the term affordable is defined as 80% of market value, and an average house costs £484,716 in London, who can even afford the affordable?The failings of local councils to provide housing for all Londoners has led to this almost meaningless terminology being thrown only around by developers and estate agents to sell already profitable schemes. With the term 'genuine affordable' hot on its heels and growing as a response, do architects have any power to broker housing that is actually affordable with developers and councils, or is up to the market to decide what is affordable, genuine or no?Speakers:Lara Kinneir, New London Architecture (Chair)Tarek Merlin, Feix&Merlin Calum Green, London Community Land TrustClaire Bennie, MunicipalPatrik Schumacher, Zaha Hadid Architects
Mind The Gap: The Chasm Between Practice And EducationAfter years spent designing wondrous master-plans for fictional cities, debating the rights and wrongs of the Frankfurt School and churning out thousands of words on the subject - architects leave university to find themselves working on technical details for perfunctory spaces in massive practices.Surely given the length of time needed and the tens of thousands of pounds spent in the process, Universities could better prepare students for the realities of the professional world?With all the differing schools of architecture in London and no shortage of tutors who are architects themselves, why is there this gap between study and practice and what is the best route into the profession? Or is the value and responsibility of an education more than just setting students up for a lifetime of practice?Speakers:Laura Mark, Walmer Yard (Chair) Eva Franch i Gilabert, Architectural AssociationJeremy Till, Central Saint MartinsHarriet Harriss, RCAJohn McElgunn, Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners: RSHP
Londons Borderlands: Territorial Pissings?(Borderlands: Boundaries Within The City State)London is a wonderful metropolis but those that live and work in the city know that it is really the congregation of many different fiefdoms. Each place abides by its own rules and cherishes its own identity. There is no such things as a Londoner; people identify with their local community, as well as the physical context and history of their surroundings.This brand of fierce localism has a knock-on effect for architecture and planning but what happens to the places that fall between the gaps? Boroughs care less about the impact of something they build on their neighbour. Also, borders provide uncertainty about responsibility for particular areas and the populations that live there. Boundaries can therefore give rise to neglected landscapes but they also provide huge opportunities for innovation and experimentation. The Boundary Estate changed social housing for generations, can we use hidden hinterlands to create a better city? Speakers:Martyn Evans, U+I (Chair)Sarah Featherstone, Featherstone YoungSelina Mason, LendleasePooja Agrawal, Public PracticeMark Brearley, The Cass Cities
I’m So Bored With The RIBA: Irrelevance Institutionalised?Everyone loves taking a swipe at the RIBA. Either it's out of date, too bureaucratic, too ineffective, too expensive, too London centric and lacking diversity or all of the above. Yet with 44,000 members, the RIBA falls into the same difficulty as other British institutions such as the BBC and NHS and being so large that it's an impossible task to keep everyone happy.The RIBA is still extremely prolific and internationally respected with it's Code of Conduct being seen as a gold standard for architects and a busy yearly programme of awards, competitions, lectures, workshops, exhibitions and community outreach and engagement. At it's heart it's an opt-in members organisation so if it's not for you there's no reason to join. But as a touchstone of British architecture surely it should be listening to valid criticisms from members and those outside?So what do people actually want from RIBA? What changes would be best? Who is it trying to please and what other organisations are doing it better?Speakers:Helen Parton, Journalist (Chair)Elsie Owusu OBE, RIBA Council NationalRussell Curtis, RCkaZoe Berman, Studio Berman/ Part W CollectiveStephanie Edwards, Urban Symbiotics/ RIBA Londo
Fail Safe, Safe Fail, Fail Better!In engineering and design, a fail-safe is a system that mitigates further harm or failure. Mistakes, bad decisions and a lack of skill can cause great harm to projects at any point in the process and architects often have to step in with their fail-safes. This can involve taking the blame, sorting the problem or even reversing the fail into something positive. Though there are many ways to define the success of a building (PR spin, fees, satisfied clients/users) failure persists and practices continue as architecture and design always comes second to financial or political constraints. Counter to this, there are spectacular and popular pieces of architecture full of failure that are meekly accepted by the user. In this context, is failing safely working for architecture? Failure is a part of everyday as designers of the built environment, so should there be a new discourse on our achievements, frustrated projects and failed masterpiece? Should we be more open about them? Can we learn from failure? Or do we continue, in our fear of being classed as ‘bad architects’, to default into a future of safe fails?Speakers:Tim Abrahams, journalist (Chair)Carl Turner, Carl Turner ArchitectsJane Wernick, engineersHRW Valentina Miceli, WilkinsonEyreNile Bridgeman, Afterparti
Thick As A Brick: Dis Honesty And Architecture…Over years of architectural and building history, the approach to design has frequently been supported by claims of being honest to material, form and context. This becomes a polemic when encompassed into architectural styles and genres: Hi-Tech wears its heart on its sleeve; Modernism, from the roots of classicism, follows function to a degree; and Post Modernism masks and plays games with little care as to whether there is honesty or dishonesty in the styling of buildings. Marked by increasing amounts of financial and political constraints in the UK, progress in new architectural style and form has become limited. Architects continue to tell us how important they are and fight to illustrate how ethical, or how honest they are to their projects. Is there any truth in the claim that the fashion for a rational pared down aesthetic is any more authentic than the decorative motifs of the past? Architects join forces with developers to PR spin their designs, but surely commercial viability is more straightforward than a fetish for ideology over purpose. Is there possibility in this current age of ‘Fake News’, for architects to proudly embrace a dishonest design approach and cheat the constraints of the system? How thick is your brick?Speakers:Will Hurst, Architects’ Journal (Chair)Amin Taha, GroupworkJo Cowen, Jo Cowen Architects Simon Allford, Allford Hall Monaghan MorrisSean Griffiths, Prof. of Architecture, freelance artist & architect
Having provoked debates interrogating all things “Architectural” from its base in east London, “Negroni talks…!” is hitting the road to discover how the Politics Of Architecture plays out in other parts of the UK. Heading North, South, East and West, The Negroni Talks On the Road Tour aims to hold ‘4 talks in 4 towns’, taking a look at what’s happening on the ground by focusing on local factors that shape the built environment, and what this means for it’s inhabitants. In overview, the Series presents essentially the same discussion in each of the places visited. This repetition is a means to spotlight differences, but also those areas of similarity between urban environments to make comparisons at a national scale. The fabric of each village, town and city across the land stands as a witness to the fallibility of decision-making where private agendas and the public interest collide. Recording the passage of time in material forms, every built landscape provides its own version of a common history - namely the cause and effect impact that buildings and property have as a political player. The talk series poses a series of questions to prompt the discussions:Process: Building is a simple act with an abundance of complexities. What are the fundamental flaws in the current overall system by which buildings are created? Planning: A broken system suffering from a distinct lack of vision? Does it address need and if so whose? As a reactive body, does it have the ability, the will, or the funding to ensure that beyond the concerns of the individual, there is a grander master plan? Policy: Is there a lack of assertiveness, a lack of confidence, a lack of knowledge or a lack of ideas on how to carefully harness market forces for the common good?Permission: Who decides? Are the interests & the imagination of those who say yes or no, broad enough? Playing the game: Who sets the rules and is breaking them the only way to build what is really needed?Procurement: Finance tends to dominate discussions about delivery and determines (and often limits) the scope of what is possible? So, what of our ambition? What could be? Potential: Where and how is it being wasted?Place-making: Can new buildings offer a necessary variety so that they serve all demographics in society and assist in creating more collective spirited communities in the future? Progressiveness: How do you create processes where quality and invention are expected and not hoped for?Performance: How do you ensure that all buildings contribute socially & environmentally? Past Problems: The built environment offers lessons on mistakes made. It illustrates what works, what has time proven longevity and where ideas/experiments have failed. With the benefit of hindsight, are we clear in what we are doing and what we need to avoid? Purpose: What is the point of building? Should we ask this before we do anything?Planet: Can ‘development opportunity’ become redefined so that new building is allied more with existing built fabric?Power: How can heritage, identity and representation be used positively to decentralize, diversify and empower?Politics: Despite the posturing and of our politicians and the promotion of Britain as ‘Great’, are our built environments blighted by a national malaise and if so what can be done to overcome this?
The Recognitions (architecture’s gentrification guilt)Vyner Street is a locus for the shifting identity of London’s East End. Artists and creatives moved into the area and integrated themselves into the local culture and communities. However, their arrival was a catalyst for regenerative change that they didn’t necessarily want. Architects play a key role in this economic shift and are still present in Hackney and Tower Hamlets. Should they take a stronger position in the development of the area and the way it affects the original communities and the few remaining artists? Speakers: Dr. Jane Clossick, London Metropolitan University (chair)Cullinan Richards, ArtistsTorange Khonsari, Public WorksDr. Elanor Warwick, Clarion Housing GroupCordula Weisser, ZCD Architects
What will Brexit actually look like ?The UK is leaving the EU and it seems that some politicians believe in the same kind of economic and cultural self-sufficiency as proposed by the 1930s Italian concept of Autarchia. The truth of the matter is that London’s built environment is about to transform and no one knows what it’s going to end up looking like. The current demographic of European property owners, contractors and architects are likely to change in ways we don’t yet understand. Will it end in disaster or are there massive opportunities to improve the status quo? Trade and investment drive business, and architects have proven that they are endlessly resourceful and can adapt to suit their environment. How can we make the best of unexpected circumstances and what are the moral implications? What will a post-Brexit London look like?Speakers:Paul Finch, World Architecture Festival (chair)Emilia Ternani, PhaidonVicky Richardson, London School Of ArchitectureLee Mallett, UrbikFriedrich Ludewig, ACME
Beatniks, punks and other countercultures were borne out of a restless discontent with the status quo and a desire to shift ideologies for new generations. These ideas and movements manifested themselves through art, music and literature but architecture has trodden a safer creative path. Rebellious architects appeared from time to time but what is their legacy today? Can the industry shake off its timid approach and demonstrate that buildings can affect real change? Speakers:Tim Abrahams, Architecture Critic (chair)Piers Taylor, Invisible StudioCharles Holland, Charles Holland ArchitectsShumi Bose, Central St MartinsCaz Facey, Ing Media
Craftwork: Man . Machine _ How Should Architects Be Material Synthesisers In An Electronic Age?In Association With Material Matters:Lots of architects claim that they 'craft' a building. They point at beautiful clay or paper models but in reality architecture is produced through Revit and follows strict rules of compliance and regulation. Materials are a great way to connect buildings and craft together, however, are people really convinced that a corporate office is baked in a kiln? And what about craftspeople themselves? What is their role in the design and construction of buildings? Surely they could help create spaces that are humane, tactile and desirable and yet the such considerations don’t seem to be part of the process until it's all too late, if at all. Join us for an evening of discussion about craft and architecture, or should it be craft vs architecture? Featuring:Debika Ray, editior Crafts (chair)Bill Amberg, founder Bill Amberg StudioMat Barnes, director, CANCorinne Julius, curator, writer and broadcasterShiro Muchiri, creative director So Shiro amongst others….
By The Seat Of Their Pants? Architects Designing Chairs.In Association With Material Matters:The Eames did it, Mies did it, even architecturally-educated fleas did it. Let's do it, let's design a chair. Why do architects think they can dip their toes into furniture design? And, perhaps more interestingly, why do product designers think they can have a pop at architecture? We all agree that interdisciplinary crossovers are interesting, but surely professionals train for years for a particular purpose. Lets explore why designers fancy stepping on each others' toes and what happens when they join forces. Featuring:Claire Dowdy, journalist (chair)Naomi Cleaver, designer, author and broadcasterNigel Coates, architect and designerAdam Nathan Furman, artist and designerHanna Afolabi, Mood and Space amongst others….
Social housing is incredibly important as one of the sectors where the work of architects and planners can have the most direct impact on cities and their populations. If done properly it should create inclusive, good quality places to live for the more vulnerable and less well off in our society. However, the ideals for post-war inner-city housing moved from utopian vision to dystopia in the public perception, thanks to inconsistent execution, poor maintenance and the sense that Brutalism is somehow dehumanizing. We are now experiencing the inevitable backswing though, as certain towers and estates have fallen into fashion, with a rediscovering of past values such as: experimental design, decent space standards, solid materials and an attention to detail that has gone missing in our contemporary formula-driven residential offerings. The celebration of these potent symbols of a bygone era can be witnessed across books and films, on album covers, featured in walking tours and appearing on everything from posters to tea towels. Estate agents are able to command high prices for flats set within concrete landscapes. This obsession with a new kind of picturesque seems to run alongside the trend for the photographic coverage of urban decay and what has been termed “ruin porn”. Is there a danger that we are commodifying a super-graphic architecture that keeps us one-step removed from social purpose? Are we seeing buildings as bold geometric statements rather than focusing on the lived experience of residents? How do we address the inherent tension between the spectator snapping away at surface appearance and the occupants living inside whose homes have become subjected to cycle trip ‘tourism’ and Instagram posts? Council housing in the UK has its detractors, but it grew out of an idealism that is no less urgent given the political social and economic realities of today. How do we get closer to a pioneering sense of purpose and guarantee avant-garde, design-led housing that works for the future, in a way that was attempted in the past? Speakers:Gareth Gardner, Photographer, Curator, Journalist (chair) Rut Blees Luxemburg, PhotographerYemí Aládérun, Meridian Water Albert Hill, The Modern HouseRosalind Peebles, Open City Charlotte Ginsborg, Filmmakeramongst others….
The Picturesque #3: Vernacular SchmernacularWhat the hell does ‘vernacular’ mean in architecture? The term is defined as "the language or dialect spoken by the ordinary people in a particular country or region”“architecture concerned with domestic and functional rather than public or monumental buildings”. In today’s planning and design setting, it seems to revolve solely around aesthetics, material and style. Hip architects and mass house builders alike, knowingly reference traditional/historical design motifs to secure a kind of moral high ground and justify why their buildings are the way they are. Is there any such a thing as a national, regional or a particular city/town/village vernacular? Should we adhere to a sense of 'a particular way' of doing things to provide us with a sense of identity and place-making, or should the idea of 'a vernacular' be challenged and re-defined as something related to culture more broadly? Are people having the wool pulled over their eyes by those delivering buildings, where the actual content of what is being delivered is being trumped by self-referential form making. A return to those dictionary definitions may point the way forward….Context is very important and we should be aware of our surroundings when designing places for people to live, work and enjoy themselves. Good design engenders a sense of pride although style is clearly a loaded gun in the politicised policy-driven world of planning and what gets permission. However, as we face the challenges of the climate emergency and growing social inequality, can we afford to get distracted by details and differences? And who’s vernacular are we talking about when we think about the wide range of communities that make up a local area or sometimes a single street? Is it time to ditch the word altogether, or do we need to develop a new type of vernacular that is driven by the pressing needs of the day? Speakers:Alpa Depani, Waltham Forest (chair) Selasi Setufe, Be FirstIndia Block, Disegno John Nordon, NeighbourhoodJoanne Cave, David Lock Associates Hugh McEwen, Office S&M amongst others….
In collaboration with Always Thinking & The Festival Of HospitalityThe Negroni Talks have partnered up with the Festival of Hospitality as part of their new Devil’s Advocate series. Much like the existing programme, these events are intended to be open, provocative and engaging. Featured expert speakers will tackle difficult subjects head on but we also want to hear from the audience too, as part of a live and unfiltered discussion.For Meta or Worse? is the first event and it provides an opportunity to ask questions about the role of the Metaverse within the hospitality industry, particularly as the world seems to lurch towards virtual environments. This new frontier could represent a goldrush for early pioneers, while simultaneously creating a dangerous territory where traditional rules no longer apply. How do we know where to invest and what will be the return?There are, of course, early adopters such as brands like LEVEN and CitizenM, who are keen to embrace the expanded customer experience that the Metaverse brings. However, there are also many that hold on to the idea that the very nature of hospitality is rooted in interpersonal experiences in the ‘real’ world. How do we navigate this and who has all the answers? Speakers:Philippa Wagner, Founder of PW/c (chair) Zaha Hadid ArchitectsSpace Popular Lewis Silkin4C Hotel Group LEVEN amongst others….
Every year, the great and the good of the British architecture scene gather to find out who will be crowned with the award for the best building in the UK. The final shortlist features six projects, which have been whittled down from hundreds of submissions that stretch across the length and breadth of the land, reflecting every scale and type of client. Sometimes it seems like an impossible set of criteria to judge and therefore prizes for the best small project, best house and best housing have been created to help support other work. Instead of employing all those local and national judges – with a grand jury at the final stage – why not simply throw a few photos onto the internet and allow the general public to vote for their favourite in a knockout-style tournament? This is exactly what has been created by Tom Ravenscroft for the Alternative Stirling Prize. We’re not saying it’s a better process but tastes on social media can certainly differ from industry arbiters. Does this tell us something about the court of public opinion? Is it useful for the profession to consider outside perspectives? We make no promises to answer these questions but please come and join us for a live event where we can discuss the merits of public decisions and find out who will take home the top prize at the 2022 Alternative Stirling Prize. Speakers:Tom Ravenscroft, Dezeen (chair) Pooja Agrawal, Public PracticeCath Slessor, Twentieth Century Society Sean Griffiths, Professor of Architecture Nile Bridgeman, Afterparti Marwa El Mubark, Afterparti Paul Monaghan, AHMMamongst others….
The history of architectural image making is ancient and, more often than not, involves a bit of propaganda. Designers have had to communicate their ideas to their paymaster - be they church, state or wealthy individual - and selling your vision comes with the territory. Fast forward to today and we’re reached a point where renders are so convincing that they can be mistaken for photos of a finished building. You can’t blame people for being suspicious that they’re being conned by a vision of a built environment that can never exist, and there is a lot of cynicism within the #RenderVsReality discussions on social media. But does the fault lie with the 'deceptive' image or the value engineering that later comes with the act of construction? There are currently some architects who would rather park the glossy, corporate-looking computer creations and focus on painterly landscapes with a cloudy Constable sky or adopt a Hockney-esque pastel palette with flattened planes. These drawings are works of art in of themselves, which could call into question their accuracy at describing the 3-dimensional actualities of lived in space. Has there ever been a ‘truthful’ depiction of a work of architecture though? Surely images will always be a 'representation' of reality and therefore fallible for all sorts of reasons. Virtual reality offers us a more immersive environment that could enforce a greater honesty, however this too is susceptible to visual tinkering and there are sensory limitations within the haptic technology ‘experience’. (i.e no sound, no smell etc). You have to ask who architectural images are made for and how they’re being deployed. Are they used to gain political support, permission to build, sell a place to live/work or are they just created to be a nice drawing? And what happens when the fashions for certain styles of renders start to affect the production of architecture itself? Where do we draw the line?Featuring:Charles Holland, Charles Holland Architects (chair)Mary Duggan, Mary Duggan ArchitectsYẹmí Aládérun, Enfield CouncilDavid Knight, DK-CMHanna Afolabi, Mood and Space Jan Bunge, Squint/Opera amongst others….
Bjarking Up The Wrong Tree: STARCHITECTURE And The Role Of The Architect In The C21st
The architect as a one-off design genius, an exploder of convention and an instigator of progressive thinking was a character forged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. As the millennium drew to a close, the personality of the ‘Starchitect’ arose as a provider of headline grabbing architecture that could sprinkle regenerative fairy dust anywhere in the world. It became doctrine that neighbourhoods and cities could easily have their fortunes turned around thanks in part, to a noticeably new and shiny addition to their built landscape. The designers involved were in turn feted as ‘visionaries’ that could travel the globe and think up new and improved ways for us to live, work and relax.
We seem now to be fully immersed in a second age of the Starchitect, with designers continuing to use expressive forms to create awe, delight and sometimes disgust. In a visual culture dominated by slick renders, glossy photos and instagram feeds, they trade on an ability to sell a place as desirable & unmissable and it seems there is no such thing as bad publicity. However, uncertainties persist with what one suspects may be a fountainhead-individualism backed up by dramatic diagrams, strong styling and a branded presentation of architecture. Much of this work aims to produce innovative structures that offer progress to Design as a whole, however are the claims of their transformative power and place-making potential actually proven in reality? Additionally, what space is there for those non-headline design acts producing a notably quieter architecture that is designed with and for local communities?
A quarter of a century in, we can no longer ignore the pressing demands of the 21st century, the climate emergency and the fact that social inequality is growing rather than shrinking. What is the role of ‘celebrity’ hotshot designers as the Earth heats and the cost of living rises? With the increasing sense that current solutions lie somewhere between those of substance and those of the snake oil seller, are such architects championing groundbreaking sustainable structures that will reshape the built environment as we know it, or are they just continuing their role as dissociated decorators of the urban landscape?
Starchitects appear united by their ability to charm developers and seduce investors. How can they best wield this influence to create a better, more equitable society? Or is it high time we did away with the Starchitect altogether? After all, it’s all sooo last century!!!!
Featuring:
Rob Fiehn (chair) Manijeh Verghese, AA School Joy Nazzari, dn&co Will Jennings, Artist & Writer Patrik Schumacher, Zaha Hadid Architects
amongst others….
Many architects and developers talk the talk but can we actually deliver diversity through design? We’re seeing some great new neighbourhoods emerging across both the UK and abroad but the commercial pressures of regeneration tend to steer us towards homogeneity. And how much can the planing process help support the creation of unplanned places, where richness and variety is often found?
‘Branded experiences’ can be delivered by disparate forms and snazzy exteriors, which are then united by equally aesthetically-driven public/private realm. But is there a nagging formulaic familiarity behind the facade? Is the suffocating sameness of developments the result of too much design?
The elephant in the room is of course the motivation to ensure the necessary financial returns on large-scale investments. Unsurprisingly then, it is the type of building, type of use and type of user that will guarantee this return, which is the going concern. The definitions of who these new urban quarters are ‘created for’ remains pre-qualified and very narrow indeed. Inclusivity is exclusive. Public becomes private.
There are growing demands of promoting diversity, with a collective ambition to move towards a non-discriminatory world. With this in mind, should there be such a thing as architecture that is orientated toward specific demographic groups? Featuring:
Kat Hanna (chair) Helen Arvanitakis, Design District Anna Shapiro, AA Housing & Urbanism Roger Zogolovitch, Solidspace Pedro Gil, Studio Gil
amongst others….
Energy is a consumption that is killing us by degrees. Its production, usage and waste have long been a threat to the natural world and as a commodity it is now being deployed as a weapon of war.
Energy has become a battleground between C20th business models and C21st realities. It trades in cynicism, malevolence and greed. Worse still it illustrates our hubris, our impotence, the compromise of our moral standing and our lack of a truly reforming vision for the future. The lights may be on, but is anyone actually at home?
Guilty of a dereliction of duty, global governments have taken the easy option of dealing in imports instead of relying on self-sufficiency. They have led us down the dead-end-street of a compromised dependency on dwindling fossil fuels, rather than boldly committing to comprehensive renewable strategies. In securing supply at any cost and unwilling to countenance a disruption to our way of life, politicians have centralized our power in other people hands. With whole populations held hostage by investors and lobbyists whose interests are protected through policy, oil, gas and coal industries have us all literally over a barrel.
So what of architecture in these disingenuous times? The pre-occupations of the creative design professional can seem hopelessly out of touch in the face of such seismic issues. However, the built environment IS a key factor in setting out what our energy requirements actually are and so determines levels of Demand, which in turn defines what the Supply is.
Sadly there is a great deal of medieval thinking at work in the building of our buildings. Take our great British house-building industry, which kills off progressive thought and whose response is to skyrocket costs at the merest suggestion of any upgrade in building specification or performance criteria. Some 60 years ago, people went into space with nothing more than some glorified tin foil between them and the ultimate of all inhospitable environments, and yet back here on Earth we more often messily muddle through using minor modifications to tried and tested methods.
When it comes to insulation, there is a clear economic tug of war between the floor area of buildings and the thickness of building envelope. Thinner insulation is more expensive and so a desire to build cheaply leads to less space in which to live. Questions about what we ‘value’ are therefore pertinent. With rising energy bills and the worsening cost of living forced on society at large, will the general public start to demand higher standards & revolutionary change, or will the profiteering of energy companies be allowed to continue as they are, aided by high usage linked to poor performance of building fabric?
As insulation campaigners are vilified by the establishment, where is the collective will to fully explore holistic solutions to THE major issue facing the built environment today? With poorly serviced/insulated housing stock stubbornly accounting for 15% of UK greenhouse gas emissions, do we have any other choice but to make urgent changes as quickly as possible?
Featuring:
Will Ing, Architects' Journal (chair) Kunle Barker, Property Expert, Writer & Broadcaster Cameron Ford, Insulate Britain Tanvir Hasan, Donald Insall Associates Summer Islam, Material Cultures Tim O'Callaghan, nimtim architects
amongst others….
Talking Rubbish! BINS
Local authorities have bin going mad! Whilst many architects, urban planners, housing associations and developers try to design the homes, towns and cities of the future, they are frequently hamstrung by the regulatory hurdles that are focused on the accommodation of waste management. Giant wheelie bins fill our pavements, louvered doors dominate pavement frontages, and the spaces of our streets are oriented around the turning circle of a rubbish truck.
With a lack of clear planning policy, it seems that the mundane and everyday has taken control of the creative place making involved in housing design, pushing us towards sterile blocks, with paved wastelands between home and curb. Things were not always this way though, and there are some who refuse to accept refuse; those who are willing to fight for a ‘less rubbish’ and cleaner future. How can we extricate ourselves from the debris of bureaucracy and create places that are designed around how we want to live rather than where we put the recycling? It’s time for some trash talk!
Featuring:
Will Sandy, Will Sandy Design Studio (Chair) Cany Ash, Ash Sakula Jas Bhalla, Jas Bhalla Architects David Milner, Create Streets Chloe Phelps, Grounded Ander Zabala, Hackney Council
amongst others….
On The Night….
Death By Design Construction has always been a dangerous (read: corrupt) game and it seems that the bigger the project, the greater the risks to workers’ safety. Fatalities on building sites were maybe to be expected in the dim and distant past, but in the 21st century haven’t we developed sufficient regulatory control, machinery or digital technologies to rule out death by architecture?
This debate has resurfaced recently as some (football) players and activists have urged a boycott of the Qatar 2022 World Cup because of the treatment of migrant workers, who have been plunged into a form of contemporary slavery, with little regard for their lives.
Zaha Hadid famously stated that architects have "nothing to do with the workers", despite a series of exposes in recent years and accusations of cover-ups about the scale of building site mortality rates. More broadly, the profession seems to claim ignorance and deny knowledge of scandals like the one surrounding the construction site of Istanbul Airport - so bad it was dubbed ‘the cemetery’ - whilst enjoying the publicity and rewards that these projects bring them.
All of this begs a question over who is responsible? What is the role of the architectural profession when it comes to worker safety and where do you draw the line as the designer of a building that could likely result in hundreds or thousands of deaths? Shouldn’t architects publicly denounce their clients when they are seen to have suspect ethical standards, or is keeping quiet in order to help secure work more important?
Featuring:
Dr Ruth Lang (chair) David Ogunmuyiwa, ArchitectureDoingPlace Dr Ariana Markowitz, The Bartlett Development Planning Unit Isobel Archer, Business & Human Rights Resource Centre amongst others….
Architecture: Structuring Segregation?
Poor Doors have hit the headlines are once again aimed at escalating levels of outrage, declaring that modern housing developments promote segregation and social cleansing.
However, we live in a time when cash-strapped councils can’t deliver their own housing programmes and we rely on private developers to provide housing nationwide. With an emphasis on investment returns and the drive to remove all that is deemed to adversely affect market value, certain tenures of housing are considered ‘undesirable’ and something to be reduced through negotiation or worse still, relocated geographically out of sight.
Meanwhile cities remain places of variety, difference and not exclusive to any one group. Across millennia different communities have lived in close proximity to each other where rich and poor live cheek-by-jowl, although instances of cohabitation are extremely rare. Is the current furore over 'poor doors' more in response to the dehumanising term (itself a journalistic construct), rather than the issues behind labelled and separate building entrances, or is it a part of the housing crisis that we feel in the 21st century should be solvable?
As Robert Hughes has stated, historically speaking ‘there was no architecture of the poor, all they had was slums’. Are 'poor doors’ not an example of a need for separation that has always been present in the city, or are they a signal that separation legitimises class bias.
Recent reports of a children’s playground being made inaccessible to particular ‘types’ of children within a mixed tenure development is certainly the canary down the coal mine in any debate about levels of segregation and integration. It raises a spectre; that if someone can think about children in such a way, then should they be a defining force when it comes to housing people and creating the places in which we all live?
We can all agree that we need to build more homes and no one wants to create ghettos with the urban fabric, but in the current climate of free market economics and conservative policy, are separate entrances really a problem and if they are then what other solutions are available that could lead to greater levels of social integration?
Featuring:
Heather Thomas, Sapphire Independent Housing Dave Hill, On London Akil Scafe Smith, Resolve Collective Dinah Bornat, ZCD Architects amongst others….
The Airing Architectures Dirty Laundry Series: #03 ARTWASHING
Artists and gentrification already have an uncomfortable relationship. Creative communities have often drifted into less desirable areas where the rents are much cheaper, making unconscious changes around them and adding a ‘cool factor’ that in turn shifts the perception of a place. This process is old news and developers have cottoned on to the winning formula and sped up the process.
Depressed areas are now targeted by local authorities and developers for improvement and the first steps usually involve some eye catching murals or pop-up pavilions that become destinations in of themselves. In a digital age, we’ve seen cultural tourists flock to these places for Instagram moments, enjoying the contrast between bold artworks and gritty urban landscapes.
To distill this cheek-by-jowl affiliation between corporate bodies and artists even further, we are now witnessing a renewed vigour for the commissioning of pieces in or around some of the most bland and unexciting architecture and place-making. Here colourful bricolage or spray-painted ‘street art’ is used to dress up the banal, with little regard for existing communities or local heritage. In these circumstances, how do we apportion blame and complicity between the commissioner and the creative?
Featuring:
David Michon, Editorial Director (chair) Will Jennings, Artist & Writer Fiona Grady, Artist Seyi Adelekun, Artist/Assemble Tony Colville, Urban Splash amongst others….
The Airing Architectures Dirty Laundry Series: #02 BAMEWASHING
Of the many massive social upheavals of 2020, the BLM protests made us ask difficult questions about persistent levels of racial inequality and how many of us are complicit with the current system.
This has resulted in some positive moves within the built environment, with public sector procurement going through a shake-up. Local authority frameworks are being re-imagined and outspoken critics are getting important airtime. Dare we hope that we might be experiencing a paradigm shift that will lead to communities receiving buildings that are actually designed by people who understand them? Or is it more a case of large practices playing the box-ticking game by tagging on a BAME-led practice to their tender entry?
It’s too early to tell if any of the current initiatives will bring about long-term change. All we can know is that we are in the messy period of transition and that things could easily slip back into existing patterns of privilege and old boy networks. We cannot assume that sticking a diversity plaster on procurement, or an in-practice workshop, will lead to wide-ranging systemic improvements. BAME isn't a genre of design, so why are developers looking for black excellence when white mediocrity was sufficient up until now?
Can we bring about a cultural and behavioural revolution that the architecture industry so desperately needs? More importantly how is this done in a competitive market ? And why do so many think it’s not really a problem in the first place?
Featuring:
Joseph Henry, Sound Advice Jas Bhalla, Jas Bhalla Architects Marsha Ramroop, RIBA Peter George, Meridian Water Sarah Akigbogun, Studio Aki amongst others….
The Airing Architectures Dirty Laundry Series: #01 GREENWASHING
The science is clear on the construction industry, it's one of the biggest polluters and contributors to climate destruction. There is more and more of a push for projects, practices and the whole built environment to be sustainable, but even a term such as that can make the industry's path to real change unclear. With 'Sustainable' being used to describe everything from stuck-on solar panels, net-zero airports to open-plan offices, good and bad intentions can easily blur and the planet is no better off for it.
That's where questions, and more often accusations, of Greenwashing come in. Though grassroots organisations, community groups, press and commentators on social media can see through marketing speak, without regulation developers can use cosmetic green credentials to secure tenants and sail through planning, an architect can proudly cycle to MIPIM to pick up emissions heavy work and a glass skyscraper can be awarded a BREEAM rating and everyone pats themselves on the back with little to no consequences.
How can we really tackle the climate emergency in a way that makes the difference needed? What model should we use to judge a buildings success? Who loses out from ineffective Greenwashing?
Featuring:
Maria Smith, Buro Happold Angela Dapper, Grimshaw Sabrina Syed, Arch designer & writer Joe Giddings, Architects Climate Action Network
amongst others….
There’s No L In Architecture: Musings On Making Less & More In The Coming New Year.
It’s been an interesting year to say the least. The world has witnessed unparalleled change and technology has had to step up and fill the void left behind by restrictions on work and social gatherings. But the architecture industry carries on regardless, as teams meet in virtual spaces and planning authorities make decisions via little Zoom boxes. Builders still build and investors want to put their money into something despite the empty office buildings and cafes in our city centres that were once buzzing with activity.
In the space of the last nine months we have shifted events and networking from almost exclusively physical environments to entirely digital. Following the initial excitement of meeting friends and colleagues for a drink while sitting at the laptop there was a glut of online activities (including a few our most exciting Negroni Talks ever produced). However, that sudden popularity peaked and then started to wane as we all realised that we’d rather take a screen break and go for a walk.
As the cold nights draw in, we thought it was worth one last hurrah to meet and look at the year in review with old friends/ collaborators and newcomers for a good old gossip. We are therefore proposing a special talk to see out 2020 with a Negroni in hand and a chance to consider what 2021 will bring. One things for sure, we won’t be returning to business as usual.
Space Invaders: Architecture and A Freeing From The Physical.
In the 2009 trial of the founders of Pirate Bay, the defendants were quoted as requesting that the language of the court be amended "We prefer AFK (Away From Keyboard) to IRL (In Real Life)" they said, "because we think the Internet is real."
We've never been closer to breaking down the boundaries between physical and digital environments. However, the alternative worlds of VR, Triple A video games and MMORPGs, provide 'spaces’ - which millions (if not billions) of people inhabit and interact with one another on a daily basis - that are rarely looked at as architectural, design led endeavours.
Representations of buildings in video games frequently use recognisable forms to anchor us in familiar territory, and yet digital landscapes have the potential to expand our horizons and offer us unprecedented access, when compared to the restrictions and rules of the ‘real’ world. Can the digital ‘freedom’ suggested by video games be used to inspire a rethink of how to approach physical projects? Conversely can the ergonomic, sensory and poetic qualities found within designed material space inspire more ‘feeling’ in the virtual? What can each industry learn from the other to better realise the worlds they create? What is the role of architecture in an alternative reality?
Speakers:
Shumi Bose, Writer, lecturer and curator (chair) Alexandra Lange, Architecture and Design critic Will Wiles, Author Lara Lesmes and Fredrik Hellberg, Space Popular Gregarious Kythreotis, shed works Ibiye Camp, Artist
Stand & Deliver: The Roll Of Finance In Architecture
On the development highways, when money flows, everything is good. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. It is an environment where money makes money and risks are calculated. It’s a numbers game.
Those with land ownership have the asset (the raw materials) and stand to offer those with financial backing and proven experience (the processing) to deliver development. Then its packaged up and sold in the marketplace for a profit thanks to professionals, agents and so on (the sales people). Everyone gets their cut. In this scene, ‘Architecture’ has become a side show to the act of building and an increasingly marginalised concern, because architects don’t tend to take on responsibility and risk in comparison with the high-stake players.
Finance in Architecture. Is it relevant? Is it of any value? Is it really worth talking about?
It is not just a question of how architecture embeds itself within the powerful spatial fix. Nor is it a question simply about the architects ethics, morality or address to the corrupting power of money. It is more a question of power itself. What if the architect was highwayman? Your money or your life?
Speakers:
Alpa Depani, London Borough of Waltham Forest (Chair) Simon Allford, AHMM Dr Julia King, LSE Jack Self, REAL David Ogunmuyiwa, ArchitectureDoingPlace
Is the icon in architecture about to disappear? Love them or loathe them, there are a series of buildings and structures that have become ‘iconic’ around the world - drawing visitors from far and wide and reshaping city skylines. Many argue that these totemic built forms are key to local regeneration as they attract people and money. This is not a wholly new phenomenon but recent success has led to a new wave of marketing language around buildings, where any small flourish of form on a block of flats instantly makes the building an ‘icon’ within its area. We have also seen the rise of the ‘starchiect' alongside the growth of iconic architecture, where the cult of personality has become another tool for selling architecture to tenants and the wider public.
In a world disrupted by pandemics, physical mobility is potentially set to change forever and seismic shifts in culture will inevitably lead to new perspectives. How will we use buildings in the future and what will be important to most people living in towns and cities? Perhaps a quieter preoccupation with interior space and a less assertive design sensibility will take precedence over dramatic external forms. Are we seeing an end to the era of the icon?
Speakers:
Tom Dyckhoff, Writer, Broadcaster, Historian (Chair) Peter Wynne Rees CBE, Professor of Places & City Planning Adam Nathaniel Furman, Artist and Designer Amanda Baillieu, Journalist and founder of Archiboo Yasmin Al-Ani Spence, WilkinsonEyre Thom Mayne, founding partner of Morphosis
Modern Architects Are Rubbish. (Banality II)
Architects are supposedly part of the creative community so why are they so incapable of talking about cities and buildings in an engaging way? Unlike many artists, it is rare for architects to fearlessly pursue new ideas and commit themselves to provoking new ways of living and thinking. Are they too consumed with the making of architecture and the broader implications of their work to figure out a way to talk about it? Do architects need a reality check?
The forces behind new buildings – The Who, The What and The Why – remain unseen, unknown and something of a mystery to the general public. Architecture appears to exist as a kind of mask, impenetrable, impersonal, unrepentant and concealing as much as it reveals. When many buildings are as dull as dishwater, is this blandness a true reflection of the designers behind them? What language architecture speaks and how easily it can be understood are important questions to determine if it can successfully connect with us as people and have meaning in our daily lives.
In stark contrast, artists seem to be much more successful inquisitors by observing, inhabiting, and representing the built environment in a fashion that sparks interest and debate. Whether it is painting, sculpture, collage, film, literature or music, art has consistently addressed the implications of architecture on society, space and place and in doing so has communicated fundamental truths and experiences that shape our understanding of the human condition.
Does this mean that there’s a better conversation about architecture taking place in the art world? Should architects get out of their bubble, redefine themselves, and engage with the broader creative community to better understand the realities they’re creating with their built forms and lofty visions?
Speakers:
Sam Jacob, Sam Jacob Studio (Chair) Marc Isaacs, Film Maker Andrea Luka Zimmerman, Artist Hettie Judah, Writer Priya Khanchandani, Writer and Curator Nick Rosen, Author
The Joy Of Architecture: Does Fun Follow Form, Function Fear & Finance?
Where is the fun in contemporary architecture? As a process, creating buildings seems to revolve around function, finance and fear rather than freeing things up for flexible flights of fancy. To add insult to injury 99% of the time the end product is uninspiring and distinctly average. So do architects actually enjoy what they spend most of their time doing?
Through building we create new realities, and in doing so we have a choice whether we make earthbound Heavens or accidental Hells. In the C21st can architecture be rediscovered as a liberating and democratising force able to help create a better world for all, with buildings standing for a celebration of life itself?
What makes a building a piece of ‘Architecture’ should help define what ‘A Joy In Architecture’ is, and yet in answering this question a trap can be seen to await designers, because a kind of ‘Joyless-ness’ frequently ends up being the result of their labours, be it in the nobility of obsessively-detailed-material-craft at one end of the spectrum, or the gimmickry of brightly coloured ‘tack on’ shapes at the other.
It seems that in Britain today, rational and formulaic brick boxes have become a lazy shorthand for design quality and appear to be the height of our collective ambition. Tasteful, inoffensive aesthetics are the order of the day and whilst this might please planners looking for ‘something that fits in’, do the general public agree? More conservative organisations argue that people crave traditionalism as a return to a golden age of architecture, but buildings should be about more than just an external aesthetic. These are the places we live and work within and the quality of every space we occupy has an emotional & psychological impact on us in our daily lives.
Is it any surprise that we’re in this position when the built environment is seen first and foremost as an investment opportunity rather than an opportunity to create amazing places and spaces? Where’s the joy in Architecture?
Speakers:
Dr Jane Clossick, London Metropolitan University (Chair) Lee Ivett, Baxendale Studio Lara Lesmes and Fredrik Hellberg, Space Popular Alpa Depani, London Borough of Waltham Forest Francis Terry, Francis Terry and Associates Alfredo Caraballo, Allies & Morrison
Procurement is a pain. For architects seeking work in the public sector, progressive design & building knowledge is often overlooked for the cheapest and quickest means to meet the end. The requisite qualification seems to be held within organisations and methods that are perceived as being ‘risk adverse’ and in those parties who can offer fees that are just crazy small. Part of this problem is how the public sector is required to comply with OJEU standards and the accompanying bureaucracy.
The alliance between private and public bodies, whilst deemed necessary in our current times, remains unperfected and flawed. If a post-Brexit economy is to be better as some proclaim, then will Britain’s public sector both simplify and open up its tendering procedures to alternatives, so that maybe architects with smaller, more dynamic and hungrier practices can win a job once in a while? Can public projects take on a new dimension through their delivery. We doubt it. The clues are in the Grenfell tragedy: a multitude of invested interests, subcontracts and cutting corners at many levels being a structural problem through its procurement.
The bidding for public work may be competitive and no doubt in many cases ‘rigged’ through frameworks of bidding, so we ask if there is scope for new forms of competition, new ways of assessing what is of value, and how to ensure a culture of attaining value for money exists and becomes the norm. Can there be a public sector emancipated from conservatism, blown budgets, and the inefficiencies and fears of Little Britain politics?
Speakers:
Russell Curtis, RCKa (Chair) Rae Whittow-Williams, Greater London Authority Merlin Fulcher, Architects' Journal Hilary Satchwell, Tibbards Lisa Woo, Enfield Council
Awards: What Are They Good For? Absolutely Nuthin’!
What is the point of Architectural Awards? Is it to win more work? Boost the ego of architects? Share beautiful projects with the general public?
The proliferation of Awards means that they have become something of an industry within an industry and we are all guilty of seeking validation by submitting projects to be judged, despite knowing that more often than not, we will miss out. Why do practices put themselves through this lottery? Meeting an Award’s criteria and putting projects forward for consideration is often costly and the benefits can often be hard to see.
We’re told that a win will propel a studio into the limelight, however since it's doubtful if many people outside the profession will ever know about it, there remain questions about the advantages or purpose of this 'new found fame'. Do awards truly reflect actual quality in architecture, or in being seduced by appearances do they end up rewarding and therefore masking bad architecture?
Meanwhile the same cabal of practices seem to be hoovering up the majority of the prizes and they’re often to be found on judging panels themselves. Are architectural awards rigged or politicised to reflect sentiment, the times, or worse; maintain a balancing act by responding to the kind of project/practice that won previously.
Should we be judging buildings like you do films, music or books anyway? It’s not as if anyone in their right mind is going to commission another version of a design thats already won an award. Awards, what are they good for?…...Absolutely nuthin!
Speakers:
Peter Smisek, ICON (Chair) Marcus Fairs, Dezeen Rab Bennetts, Bennetts Associates Veronica Simpson, Journalist Fliss Childs, Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios
Long hours and low pay are standard, all-nighters are a badge of honour, and leaving on time is derided as lacking the necessary commitment and 'working by the clock’. Why is architecture as a profession so notoriously tough on staff: Is it passion for the craft that piles on the pressure? An old-school macho mentality? Or does it all stem from the competitive unit/crit-system in education?
In turn architects are themselves part of a broader property investment and construction industry that can be combative and confrontational in its pursuit of control and profit such that it can often feel like a thoroughly unpleasant environment to work within.
Abuse comes in many guises with bullying, intimidation, discrimination, harassment, humiliation, misconduct and defamation. It operates in areas from the financial, to the emotional and the psychological. With abuses of power, rank, process and statistics, is it not the overall system in which architects find themselves the most significant thing being abused?
What needs to be done? Who is being marginalised in practice? Who is creating a work environment that's open to and safe for all? Who are the real bullies?
Speakers:
India Block, Dezeen (Chair) Fiona Scott, Gort Scott Architects Sarah Castle, IF-DO Tyen Masten, Phase 3 United Voices of the World's Section of Architectural Workers
Architecture has a difficult relationship with privilege. Everyone knows the profession is not diverse enough, which is not surprising given the fees and the length of time it takes to study. The general public see the image of the architect as aloof but when education was free we saw the rise of the working class architect. Norman Foster describes his childhood on the wrong side of the tracks in Manchester and now he is a global powerhouse. Could someone rise to prominence like this today or is the system rigged for Hooray Henrys and Sloane Rangers?
Young practices are emerging which directly address the public good but some see this as another form of patronage to ease the guilt of a design-conscious elite. Should we challenge the status quo or accept that the master/servant culture which runs through British DNA is an inescapable fact of life?
Speakers include:
Helen Parton, Journalist (Chair) Ab Rogers, Ab Rogers Design Ziona Strelitz, ZZA Lee Ivett, Baxendale Tahera Rouf, RCKa
The architectural community is very upset about climate change. They have banded together and done a petition and everything. Problem is, all the big name practices that started it are using a hell of a lot of concrete and building beautiful airports and energy-guzzling skyscrapers. Also, some architects went along to Waterloo bridge and joined a protest party but what did it achieve? It’s high time we made a difference as an industry but actions speak louder than words and buildings can make more of a statement than statements alone.
Speakers:
Jan-Carlos Kucharek, RIBAJ (Chair) Julia Barfield, Marks Barfield Paul Finch, World Architecture Festival Maria Smith, Interrobang Tom Bennett, Studio Bark
We’ve had enough of the straight white male dominating the development industry. We need more diversity in leadership positions to invest in the places that will stand the test of time.
Things are beginning to change but from boardroom to building site, investors to interns, the gender imbalance across the built environment is a problem for everyone.
Are we satisfied that only 19% of board members of property industry companies are women? That only 1.3% of BAME groups work in the property industry? Or that 99% of all construction workers are male? Having more diverse decision makers will ensure that past mistakes aren’t repeated.
From everyday sexism, glass ceilings, wolf whistles, “banter” and mansplaining, the industry has a lot to change. How can we ensure that women are applying for jobs in the built environment, staying in them and prospering in the profession? What changes can be made to better reflect the diversity that are the foundations of the city itself?
Speakers:
Christine Murray, The Developer (Chair) Danna Walker, Built By Us Chris Brown, Igloo Angharad Palmer, Pocket Living Emily Lawrence, Jestico + Whiles
In the information age knowledge is power and architects now seem unwillingly to part with their juicy titbits. Back stories, Chinese whispers and insider information were once regularly traded as part of an intricate network of professional gossip. The act of giving away secrets was generous but architects could often expect information in return but in recent times many practitioners see their peers as competition and architectural opinion seems sanitised as a result. Is this a failing of our times, where gossip can no longer be seen as a catalyst to new ideas, new debates, new worlds?
If you’re not part of the in-crowd there’s a good chance you’re missing out on jobs and opportunities because of the fear of nasty rumours and misinformation leaving an indelible mark. So, should architecture bring back the outrage and the Machiavellian intrigue to rumble things up and make our designs and propositions more cutting, more interesting, more fun? The truth? You can’t handle the truth!
Speakers:
Nigel Coates (chair) Sir Peter Cook, CRAB Studio Sadie Morgan, dRMM Leanne Tritton, Ing Media Amanda Baillieu, Archiboo
Why does British Housing Look So Mean & Nasty? There is an unattractive truth about British housing: the vast majority of it is really ugly. The built environment industry is very good at heaping praise on innovative, game-changing projects with awards and extensive coverage in the media but in reality these schemes serve the smallest fraction of the population. On top of this, we are a nation obsessed with the outward appearance of our housing and ‘fitting in’ which drives planning conditions and results in mediocre responses to complex settings. And all this taking place during the one of the worst housing crises we’ve ever known!
There’s a frontier land out there of dodgy cowboy builders and racketeer businessmen. Who will ride in and save the day? Developers with a conscience who also know how to turn and profit? Architects with some backbone to stand up to their cost-cutting clients? Local authorities that have the wherewithal to game the system? It’s time to saddle up and find out…
Speakers:
Claire Bennie, Municipal (Chair) Jonny Anstead, TOWN Paul Karakusevic, Karakusevic Carson Architects Annalie Riches, Mikhail Riches Cany Ash, Ash Sakula Architects