search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
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 jparker@netmagmedia.co.uk


Publisher Anthony Parker aparker@netmagmedia.co.uk


Editorial Co-ordinators Shelley Collyer Tom Boddy


Editorial Assistants Roseanne Field Jack Wooler


Editorial Contributor Sébastien Reed


Studio Manager Mikey Pooley


Production Assistants Georgia Musson Kim Musson


Account Managers Sheehan Edmonds Paul Field


Sales Executives Nathan Hunt Steve Smith


PR Executives Suzanne Easter Kim Friend


Audience Development Manager Jane Spice


Managing Director Simon Reed


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


Press Releases editorial@netmagmedia.co.uk


Subscription circulation enquiries info@netmagmedia.co.uk


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


netMAG media


publishing – ver tical search


FROM THE EDITOR


The ‘Living with Beauty’ report by the Government’s Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, is the final part of the legacy of the controversial conservative philosopher Roger Scruton, who died last month. The document lays down over 100 policy recommendations to planners and government, including planting two million trees on streets.


For new housing developments, it proposes that developers are incentivised to show a “commitment to quality,” receiving fast tracked approval for good design. However the report did not pinpoint a specific menu of beauty criteria to aim for, but critiqued new developments for not being as beautiful as Georgian or Victorian counterparts, for example because cities are currently designed around cars.


Its approach is uncompromising, but because of that, its aims are certain to be compromised. It proposes a “new development and planning framework, in which beauty will be “the benchmark that all new developments should meet.” The definition is broad: “It includes everything that promotes a healthy and happy life, everything that makes a collection of buildings into a place.” This could be a double-edged sword, meaning beauty remains in the eye of the beholder/planner, but also perhaps supports a wider idea of beauty than merely established aesthetic conventions.


The disconnect between architects, as the arbiters of context-sensitive design quality, has led to a drop in quality, says the report, with developments “cut off from the leadership of the architectural profession” – not news to ADF readers. They often don’t get as far as being castigated for “pastiche” by using traditional idioms, which the report says “makes architects’ task harder; they must either work without a determinate style, or invent a style anew for each commission, rather than being able to fall back on an inherited set of refined solutions.”


There are wide-ranging community-oriented proposals for fixing the problems. But which of these are realistic, when we have built on average 130,500 homes per year over the last decade – well under half the 300,000 homes per year that the Government wants to see? Modular housing is being seen as the panacea, and a raft of housebuilders are now jumping on board, some larger players even building their own factories turning out prefabricated ‘plug and play’ homes.


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


How do these fit into the aims of ‘Living with Beauty’? There’s no reason why modular homes cannot be made as context-friendly and aesthetically pleasing as their Victorian counterparts. However this is of course subjective, and developers’ logistical urges, perhaps for lower-pitched roofs to get under road bridges, may not chime with what planners demand. This has recently plagued affordable housebuilder Ilke Homes’ efforts to create more practical modular solutions.


The real world of putting the numbers on the ground required to a good, sustainable standard – and a layout that works for residents – is a far cry from the higher, some may say idealistic aims of the commission. A real- world approach is however crucial. ADF will be surveying readers on their views on offsite in coming weeks; the results should be interesting.


02.20


James Parker Editor


ROYAL WHARF PIER, LONDON


A design that delivers ‘two’ piers for the price of one on the Thames, plus new public space


CITY PLAZA, WUPPERTAL, GERMANY Revitalising a railway district with a curvy gold Primark store


ON THE COVER... A new pier has opened for the Thames’ main river taxi which provides new public space as well as vital transport infrastructure. The design features a folded steel roof that helps bring light into the space.


Cover image © James Brittain For the full report on this project, go to page 62


WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK


ADF FEBRUARY 2020


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  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124