Negroni Talks Fourthspace

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, broadcaster
Tyler Goodwin, Seaforth Land
Dr Ruth Lang, Design Museum Future Observatory
Jan-Marc Petroschka and Barbican Quarter Action

amongst 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 London
Hanna 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 Architecture

According 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 Society
Robert 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:BUILD
Eleanor Jolliffe, Allies and Morrison London Practice Forum

amongst others….

Negroni Talk #S9 AI or Die: Advance or Interference? by Fourthspace