Conran: CEO Speaks: The changing face of the London skyline

Should we keep every old building just because it’s old – or should we concentrate more on the distinction between good and bad rather than ancient/modern?

Do we in Britain take enough risks when it comes to new Architecture?

These are just some of the questions our CEO Roger Mavity raised in a talk last week, organised by the London Chamber of Commerce, loosely based on the London skyline which appropriately took place right at the top of one of London’s most iconic landmarks – Tower Bridge, just around the corner from Conran HQ.

Click here to see a bite-size version of his talk.

Afterwards, Q&As from the floor raised some very interesting questions surrounding the legacy of the Olympic buildings, Supermarket design and whether our planning regulations help or hinder progress.

If you’d like to hear more about these the full talk and Q&As will be up here on youtube shortly.

Certainly food for thought.

Click back for more opinion on this point.

What do you think?



Filed under CEO Speaks: Roger Mavity, Conran & Partners, Conran and London

3 responses to “Conran: CEO Speaks: The changing face of the London skyline

  1. But who decides what’s good and bad? We here in Toronto have unfortunately disregarded our old buildings for the sake of new (sometimes very bad) architecture without any discussion and as a result we have a very unattractive city. It’s tragic that our city planning is so inept that we have lost much of the little character we had with our old architecture. Besides the criteria of “what is good and bad” a city culture must also consider the old as a foundation or anchor to the character of a city and try to preserve that as well as continue to grow with modern architecture. No small feat.

  2. Ian Palmer

    As a non-architect but having a life-long interest in architecture, I fully agree with old vs new being wrong and in theory, ‘good’ vs ‘bad’ as being the way to go. However, who defines good and bad, what makes good/bad? Have we not just substituted two comfortable words which are easy but so subjective as to be not wholly satisfying criteria??

  3. Pingback: Conran: Architecture as a metaphor for a city’s hopes and dreams |

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s