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 Strategist
Patricia Brown, Central         
Leo Hammond, Haringey Council
Hazel Joseph, AHMM                                                                                                                             Phineas Harper, Design Council Homes Taskforce                                                                                                                                                                                               and all others who want to contribute….

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 Happold
Sumita Singha, Ecologic Architects           
Shikha Bhardwaj, Hawkins\Brown
Katie-May Boyd and Charlotte Kidger, Studio TIP                                                                                                                                                                                                  and all others who want to contribute….

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 Development
Ashita Roongta, London School Of Architecture + Feix&Merlin
Paul Clarke, Stories
Prof. Pippa Catterall, University Of Westminster and all others who want to contribute….

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….