search.noResults

search.searching

note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
4 NEWS


Managing Editor James Parker james@netmagmedia.eu


Advertisement Manager/ Joint Publisher Anthony Parker anthony@netmagmedia.eu


Editorial Coordinator Sue Benson


Assistant Editor Teodora Lyubomirova


Editorial Assistants Roseanne Field Jack Wooler


Studio Manager Mikey Pooley


Production Assistants Shelley Collyer Carmen Simpson


Contributors Steve Menary


Sales Executives Suzanne Easter Ian Fletcher Kim Friend Steve Smith


Audience Development Manager Jane Spice


Managing Director Simon Reed


netMAG media


publishing – ver tical search


netMAGmedia Ltd Cointronic House Station Road, Heathfield East Sussex, TN21 8DF


Advertising & Administration t 01435 863500 f 01435 863897 info@netmagmedia.eu www.architectsdatafile.co.uk


Press Releases editorial@netmagmedia.eu


Subscription & Circulation enquiries circulation@netmagmedia.eu


FROM THE EDITOR


W


e feature a wide variety of buildings in ADF, from small private homes to mental health units, to massive concrete-built galleries, and we look them all on their own merits. We would be reluctant to solely use the criteria of whether we think they are ‘beautiful’ or not, as that is a


highly subjective business.


Sometimes our International Focus pages may showcase new projects which seem to have put a bigger focus into the cosmetic details or the overall scale and form to constitute ‘beauty’ than a large amount of what we may see coming through the works in the UK. Again that is very much in the eye of the beholder.


But at a time when the profession is under some strain, with the dual challenges of Brexit and continual squeezes on fees and earnings for a large proportion of architects, whether we need the Carbuncle Cup to further remind them of perceived failings is also up for debate. Now an established ‘booby prize’ run for over a decade, it’s gone beyond a short-lived joke to a high-profile judgement on what is a ‘bad’ building, with the inevitable online chorus of agreement and/or disdain.


As Hawkins\Brown’s Nigel Ostime reminds us in this month’s View Point, sole principal architectural practices relying on resi conversions can be scraping by on £24K a year, and the last thing they need is a kicking from being shortlisted in such a prize. And that is entirely possible given that no building is too small to escape the Cup’s pitiless gaze.


Not that architects’ work should be exempted from mockery and derision, after all they can fundamentally alter the character of an area and have the power to either elevate or destroy the visual environment. The question is, whether the ‘anti-prize’ should be restricted, as some have suggested, to the ‘sacred cows’ of the top 100 practices, or whether the minnows should be judged on the same basis. If it is to be acknowledged as credible, then the Cup itself should be scrutinised for both its methods and scope. In a world where ‘likes’ hold sway, it now has the profile that brings with it this kind of responsibility.


Annual subscription costs just £48 for 12 issues, including post and packing. Phone 01435 863500 for details. Individual copies of the publication are available at £5 each inc p & p. All rights reserved


No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, including photocopying, recording or stored in any information retrieval system without the express prior written consent of the publisher. Although every effort is made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of material published in Architects Datafile, the publisher can accept no responsibility for the claims or opinions made by contributors, manufacturers or advertisers. Editorial contributors to this journal may have made a payment towards the reproduction costs of material used to illustrate their products. The manufacturer of the paper used within our publication is a Chain-of- Custody certified supplier operating within environmental systems certified to both ISO 14001 and EMAS in order to ensure sustainable production. Printed in England


Do we need more national awards like the Stirling Prize, but sector-specific and celebrating buildings’ worth in their own context, and suffering less from the needing to judge such disparate buildings against each other? Perceived beauty may not be about dramatic geometry (perhaps shown by the Tate Switch House’s omission from this year’s Stirling Prize shortlist) – maybe it lives more in the combination of precisely matching function and achieving the right look in its particular context? This is an old argument, but one which remains key when one of our most important professions needs the credit it has earned.


James Parker Editor


09.17 ON THE COVER...


The Smile was designed by Alison Brooks Architects and Arup for the 2016 London Design Festival, and has now been shortlisted for the Structural Awards 2017. It is the first ‘mega-tube’ in hardwood CLT.


Cover The Smile, Chelsea


College of Art Alison Brooks Architects and Arup’s curved hardwood CLT sculpture is up for structural award page 08


ALEXANDRA PALACE, N LONDON Steve Menary on restoring the ‘People’s Palace’


LONG LANE, SOUTHWARK Levitt Bernstein designs a social housing block which doesn’t look like social housing


For more information, go to page 08. Image © Arup


WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK


ADF SEPTEMBER 2017


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100