As long ago as January 2005, I was wondering whether the winning design for the Architecture Foundation headquarters would be built to time and budget, and how much of the enclosed space, made up of angled walls running in all directions, would be useable.
Land Securities’ design competition, won by Hadid, had a construction cost of £2.2 million. The winning design has since then been completely revised (News October 26) but, following Bovis’s estimate of £8.4 million, Land Securities now hopes the building will cost no more than £5 million.
Surely if future design competitions are to have any credibility, and if architects are to continue to submit ideas, there should be no deviation from the prime element of budget? This is not the first time that a competition budget has been ignored — remember the Diana Fountain Memorial budgeted at £2 million, finally costing £5.2 million plus? And it was not even built on the competition site!
Ivor Hall, London NW11
I’ve never really been sure what the Architecture Foundation is all about, let alone its new HQ. But I read that director Rowan Moore says that at around £5 million or £5,500 per sq m: “It will be very much worth what it’s going to cost”. Sorry, what on earth does that mean?
I know architects and arrogance often go in the same breath, but maybe Rowan Moore could justify the building in a different way, or maybe even say it’s going to look great, work properly, and only cost say £3 million? At least then it might actually get built.
Adrian Jones, Bristol
No comments yet