Start Again #3

Start Again #3 was another whirlwind tour down London Met's in-house Memory Lane. Kieron pulled out two of LMU's high-flying faves - East and FAT. Both companies have a long history and strong association with the ASD. Both companies' directors have been taught/teach/have taught at the school and Thursday was an opportunity for reflection and analysis on their professional success so far.

It was a little odd, because for these companies are so well-known amongst students, that they've become the usual suspects, rather than new, fresh-faced start againers. Neither have they been around for forty years and are now starting again by re-training as psychologists (which is something I'd quite like to see, and was expecting as part of the Start Again series).

However, to be fair, in the grand scheme of things, both East and FAT are doing new-ish things. Their approaches are new, innovative and have unexpected results. Compare them to Foster or BDP and it's easy to see who's doing the more 'interesting' work.

But is this enough? Is that what Starting Again is? Is doing something slightly more 'interesting' the best we can hope for as architects or town planners?

I believe it is symptomatic of the ultimate, constant frustration, that once having joined the system, it is hard to change it - because your own interests as a professional, or company director quickly align with those of the system, thus limiting your own influence for change.

This was evident in FAT's infamous social housing in New Islington, Manchester. FAT relayed the story of how, through competition with two other firms, they won the hearts and minds of locals who chose them to redesign their housing block. FAT then 'got to know' the residents, how they lived and how they spatially connected with their domestic realities. Having been inspired by their findings, FAT then created a terraced housing development wrapped by a thick facade that utilised some of the resident's own symbology in its huge, explicit form.

In principle, this doesn't sound too bad - that is until you notice that the inside rooms are standardised, the ceiling heights low, and the whole story delivered by Sam Jakob with a satorial and patronising air. Sam was convinced that because the architect is using the 'people's own stories' to develop a form for the building and because he is allowing the residents to choose from heart-shaped, diamond-shaped or spades-shaped kitsch fencing, that the architect is doing everything in his capacity to be a 'servant of the people'. But this is not the case, and it is the democratic pretentions of this firm that make it so unbarable. Somehow, I prefer corporate, commercial firms that are honest about their dealings and their courtship with big business. Renzo Piano too, suffers from this syndrome - one where he is alludes to being the hero, saving and 'fixing' the city, drawing out its 'urbanity', but says so with such a smug look on his face that it's hard to trust the guy. He's got rich quick and now he doesn't care. Hence you wonder if he ever did.

The 'process' may be relatively democratic, but it remains uninclusive and architecturally standard. Although I've got no proof, I wonder what the place is actually like to live in. By Sam's own admition, the kitchen was IKEA - but I mean in terms of space and quality. I would have prefered a story where the architect could have explained how the money was spent to maximise living standards, ceiling heights and light penetration. But maybe I just have a different value system?

I don't know. Maybe I got it totally the wrong end of the stick, maybe the ceilings are high and the rooms are spatious. But I still find the delivery patronising and fake. In my book, it's not cool to rinse public sector money to get a double spread in BD. And giving people a choice of three types of kitsch fence is not democracy. If we're talking about starting again, I'd like to see really inclusive, open design, not architects' egos. I would have asked Max Nasatyr to come and talk about his role in the Coin Street Community Builders, but sadly he died in 2003. Given the publication of the Localism Bill, it'd be interesting to see how community projects will take shape over the next few years. You can read Max's Obituary here.

London Met has been occupied!

During Thursday night's Start Again #2 lecture, a group of democratically organised, autonomous students occupied the Finance Department of LMU. This has also shut down the infamously beaurocratic and cut-throat HR Department.

The Occupiers have established a safe, open space for alternative, free education - demonstrating an alternative and new ethos of education and are actively starting again.

Come and join us, follow the blog at www.wearelondonmet.wordpress.com, and send messages of support and love to 07775531897.

...and get ready for Thursday!