6 天前

Negroni Talks #50 - IMBYISM: Objection! Overruled?

Around the world tensions often surround the arrival of a new building development, which challenges the status quo and has implications for local people, buildings and the natural environment alike. The omnipresent NIMBY ("Not In My Backyard") and a counterpoint that has more recently emerged, the YIMBY ("Yes In My Backyard"), seem to be opposite sides of the same coin in having a great deal to say about proposed changes within our built environment. Both appear to be angered by what they feel as the necessity for change, so what does this tell us about the times we live in and how reasonable are their respective positions of Objection or Support? Do they highlight a lack of confidence, a fear and distrust in our democratic systems? Are they expressive of a genuine concern for the common good? Or are they equally illustrative of a self-interest that has hounded human civilisation throughout history? If everyone can be deemed to be a nimby at some level, then the reasoning and motivation behind ‘objecting’ comes into focus. Questions can also be raised about who objects and whether class/ethnicity/social standing play a part in whose voices get heard and whether broader society is being served? If some people tend to object to change irrespective of the proposals being made, then how much consideration should these objections get? Or….should the case for change simply be made in a better, more sympathetic and more convincing way? In turn, whilst the NIMBY may well stifle progress in pursuit of Preservation, is the YIMBY not in danger of enthusiastically endorsing Progress whilst overlooking the actual consequences and impact of change? Britain is a conservative country with a conflict between the country and the city, so how progressive can a vision of a future Britain really be? With its mythologies of a picturesque past blighted by decades of failure in experimenting with our built environment, would more purposefully addressing people’s concerns / needs lead to better development that is more readily accepted? We'll explore the social, cultural, economic, and political implications of this stand-off, and what it means for the future of our cities, towns and villages. Speakers: fourth_space (chair) Daisy Froud, Community Engagement StrategistPatricia Brown, Central Leo Hammond, Haringey CouncilHazel Joseph, AHMM Phineas Harper, Design Council Homes Taskforce and all others who want to contribute….

1 小時 43 分鐘

10月18日

Negroni Talks #S14 - Is Architecture Coming Round To The Circular Economy?

The UK public love The Repair Shop on TV, as grandad’s favourite old toy is given a new lease of life. Sadly, in terms of the climate crisis, the re-use of objects has a pretty negligible impact compared to something like the construction industry and we urgently need to look at the consumption and waste involved, whereby perfectly good interiors are ripped out for corporate fit-outs and whole buildings are demolished and thrown on the scrapheap. We simply don’t have the carbon budget for this level of destruction, but what can be done? Circular Economy principles show us that we can close the loopholes between processes of making, maintaining, dismantling and disposing, with leftovers from previous projects becoming part of a new cycle. There have been good recent examples of people carefully cataloguing reusable building elements for new applications, while some waste can be broken down and turned into new products. The throwaway attitude that is incumbent within our built environment cannot continue unchecked and so initiatives such as material passports or alternative methodologies could hold the key for a low-carbon industry. Unfortunately, not all materials are ready to be repurposed. Timber is often celebrated for sustainable construction, but its structural integrity does not stand the test of time and it’s cut to size components cannot easily be reused. Whilst steel can be melted back down (with the associated energy costs being a factor) and reformed to be put to alternative uses, integrity testing is required and not everything will make the grade. It appears that very few circular economy projects can scale up to any kind of significant level in the reuse of construction elements, due to practicalities, cost demands, and a lack of funded facilities/labour for the sorting of waste, testing, and re-distribution. With so many companies involved across product supply chains and the political lobbying enacted by some of the big material producers, can a vision for a new building economy ever succeed? We need designers, engineers and researchers to provide strategies if a circular economy approach is ever going to work, along with enlightened clients willing to experiment and an entire infrastructure to manage the process. What energy will be required in all of this and how much of it needs to be directed at politicians to enshrine a new joined up approach? What criteria should future accreditation/certification be based upon? Can the building economy ever truly be circular or is the idea just the latest in a long line of best intentions or design fads? Speakers: Steve Sinclair, fourth_space (chair) Wolf Mangelsdorf, Buro HappoldSumita Singha, Ecologic Architects Shikha Bhardwaj, Hawkins\BrownKatie-May Boyd and Charlotte Kidger, Studio TIP and all others who want to contribute….

58 分鐘

9月12日

Negroni Talks #S13 - QUEER EYE FOR THE RESI: A Challenge To Housing Conventions

The different typologies of building and space in which we live are broad and disparate, as housing models have evolved over the centuries to suit different needs. From cellular abodes to open-plan spaces, from the detached residence to mixed-use developments, we have sought to formulate ways to accommodate the changing needs of individuals, families and communities within different environments. But is this long tradition of flexibility and adaptation being adhered to today and what happens when we look at it through a queer lens? Current housing standards and regulations have become prescriptive in an attempt to prevent the worst tendencies of house builders, who are led by profit rather than quality. This has led to a situation where everyone meets the absolute minimum in terms of layouts and spatial planning. The 1-bed, 2-bed or 3-bed apartment and to a certain degree the detached, semi-detached and terraced house have in turn become increasingly standardized as a set of propositions, that seem unresponsive to the specifics of demographic or location that they address. We need the spaces we live in to meet basic universal criteria and to do so with a level of decency. However, should factors such as age, race, class and variations in cohabitation and what constitutes ‘the family’, not further challenge the standards and range of residential design when it is predicated on heteronormative expectations of how we live? Has ‘the home’ become a space that breeds similarities and isolation rather than differences and communality? Do our homes fundamentally address and reflect our needs as inhabitants? The LGBTQ+ community is questioning these standards through investigations into potential alternatives within design and architecture. But as we struggle to deal with the very basics of quality in the creation of new homes, can we possibly stretch further to think about the needs of communities that don’t ascribe to ‘traditional’ occupation? It feels like we have lost the ability to build homes that are fit for purpose, which is a relatively modern condition. What can and should be done to ditch the one-size-fits-all approach and instead consider the needs of more diverse residents? Speakers: Tarek Merlin, Feix&Merlin Architects (Chair) Tom Copley, Deputy Mayor Of Housing And Residential DevelopmentAshita Roongta, London School Of Architecture + Feix&Merlin Paul Clarke, StoriesProf. Pippa Catterall, University Of Westminster and all others who want to contribute….

1 小時 26 分鐘

8月12日

Negroni Talks #48 -Pressing Problems: Architecture (Un)Covered?

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 Guardian Carolyn Larkin, Caro Communications Nyima Murry, writer and filmmaker Patrick Lynch, Lynch Architects and all others who want to contribute….

1 小時 28 分鐘

7月22日

Negroni Talks #S12 - Fit For Purpose: Are Architects Built For The 21st Century?

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, Argent Lara Kinneir, London Interdisciplinary School Chris Williamson, Weston Williamson Amrit Seera, Vabel Daniel Poku-Davies, Ourspaceuk and all others who want to particpate…..

1 小時 45 分鐘

6月11日

Negroni Talks #s11 - Westward Ho! From Ealing Green to Old Oak Common

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 Corporation Natalie Campbell MBE, social entrepreneur and broadcaster Peter Fink, artist William Filmer-Sankey, Alan Baxter Associates

1 小時 50 分鐘

5月30日

Negroni Talk #47 - So Giving Co-Living: Good Intention Or Bad Invention?

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 journalist Damien Sharkey, HUB Je Ahn, Studio Weave Gil Eaton, Third Revolution Projects Simon Bayliss, HTA Design

1 小時 35 分鐘

4月30日

Negroni Talks #46 - Talkin’ ‘Bout My Generation: An Age Old Problem In Architecture?

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, Architect Dennis Austin, Daab Design Bushra Mohamed, Msoma Architects Adithya David Premraj, Serie Architects Neil Pinder, HomeGrown Plus amongst others…

1 小時 45 分鐘

Negroni Talks

Negroni Talks #50 - IMBYISM: Objection! Overruled?

Negroni Talks #S14 - Is Architecture Coming Round To The Circular Economy?

Negroni Talks #S13 - QUEER EYE FOR THE RESI: A Challenge To Housing Conventions

Negroni Talks #48 -Pressing Problems: Architecture (Un)Covered?

Negroni Talks #S12 - Fit For Purpose: Are Architects Built For The 21st Century?

Negroni Talks #s11 - Westward Ho! From Ealing Green to Old Oak Common

Negroni Talk #47 - So Giving Co-Living: Good Intention Or Bad Invention?

Negroni Talks #46 - Talkin’ ‘Bout My Generation: An Age Old Problem In Architecture?

簡介

資訊

你可能也會喜歡

Negroni Talks

集數

Negroni Talks #50 - IMBYISM: Objection! Overruled?

Negroni Talks #S14 - Is Architecture Coming Round To The Circular Economy?

Negroni Talks #S13 - QUEER EYE FOR THE RESI: A Challenge To Housing Conventions

Negroni Talks #48 -Pressing Problems: Architecture (Un)Covered?

Negroni Talks #S12 - Fit For Purpose: Are Architects Built For The 21st Century?

Negroni Talks #s11 - Westward Ho! From Ealing Green to Old Oak Common

Negroni Talk #47 - So Giving Co-Living: Good Intention Or Bad Invention?

Negroni Talks #46 - Talkin’ ‘Bout My Generation: An Age Old Problem In Architecture?

簡介

資訊

你可能也會喜歡