We are Architectural Workers; employed by the practices facilitating the transfer of public land to the private purse through urban (re)development.
In December 2016, following the media frenzy over Patrik Schumacher, we posted an open letter, calling for the role of the architect in estate regeneration to be put under scrutiny. We challenged our bosses, deemed to be experts in the field, to a public debate.
As of 07th February 2017, four of the six practices have responded to our call – with three accepting our invitation. Below are all the responses.
Would be delighted to attend Regards Paul (07.10.16)
Paul Karakusevic, Karakusevic Carson Architects
Thank you for your invitation. I would be pleased to join you in a discussion and correct assumptions that you are making about what motivates, me and my practice. Please put forward some dates and I will confirm my availability. As you are keen to have transparency about what motivates me I kindly ask the same in return and wish to know who I am addressing. (09.12.16)
Alex Ely, Mae Architects
Dear Architectural Workers,
We share your desire to see these complex issues discussed and debated openly and for the RIBA to support this by providing a platform for it. I am aware that the RIBA is actively looking at this, that Jane Duncan has a series of debates starting in the New Year including the issues raised by Patrik Schumacher’s speech and wider issues of regeneration.
If any of your number actually do work in my practice, as is implied by your correspondence, they cannot have failed to notice that we have already been explicitly clear about our views on this matter. We have set these out in our joint publication ‘Altered Estates (http://www.alteredestates.co.uk/ ) in widely attended presentations on the matter at The London Society, National Housing Federation conference, New London Architecture and so on. An abbreviated version also appears in the current edition of The London Society Journal.
Your correspondence contains one assertion I feel I must respond to right away, and ahead of the debate we would all like to see. You imply that we are happy to pay at less than The London Living Wage. None of our employees is paid less than the London Living Wage. In fact we benchmark our salary structure carefully to ensure that it is fair and competitive, we are proud to hold ‘Investors in People’ status and to be listed amongst Building Magazine’s top 50 employers.
So I too look forward to the debates taking place. I quite understand that housing is inescapably political and that there are wide ranging views about it, as we have seen. The debates should serve to inform opinion in what threatens to become a ‘post truth’ age; they should be open, measured and meaningful. In that context, we are more than happy to participate and to present our long history of regeneration projects, of which we are extremely proud, for public scrutiny. (13.12.17)
Ben Derbyshire, HTA Design + RIBA President-Elect
We will not engage with an anonymous, unaccountable group, but we would encourage you to be part of upcoming public housing debates that are being organised by the RIBA. (16.12.16)
(anonymous), Haworth Tompkins
You can find these responses, with follow up questions, on the comments section here.
We have not received a response from PRP Architects or dRMM.
If you are interested in our debate, would like to submit a question to your boss, or would like to join us as we organise it, please contact us at email@example.com. Anonymity will be respected.