Currently showing blog posts for: debate Archives - . Go BACK to view all posts.
Peter Murray

 

Members are the lifeblood of the London Society, helping fund our events, publications and the work we do with the All-Party Parliamentary Group.

More than that, the engaged membership that we have gets involved in the talks and debates we hold, comes on the tours and walks, and contributes to the discussion on the sort of capital city that we want.

If you’re interested in making London a better place in which to live and to work, want to know more about the city’s history and development, enjoy seeing ‘behind the scenes’ at famous buildings and architects’ practices, then you really need to become a member.

And this is the best time at which to join. In the New Year, membership rates increase, so if you join now, you can save up to £10 off.

The spring 2018 events programme is taking shape (you can download the current list here) with booking open to members for several events.

Many of our events sold out in 2017, so if you want to make sure that you don’t miss a talk or tour that you’re really interested in, then becoming a member gives you priority booking as well as discounted tickets.

We have nearly 1,000 individual members now and hope to get this to 1,500 next year. Join today and you’ll be part of a growing society that is educating, informing and entertaining its members. Click here for more information.

Leave a Reply

Peter Murray

 

Passions run high on all sides in discussions about the future of the Green Belt, but this often produces more heat than light. This London Society Debate: A Better Green Belt? Making the Green Belt fit for the 21st Century brought together five speakers with differing views to give their opinions on what, if anything, should be done: Richard Knox Johnston, London Green Belt Council; Richard Upton, Deputy Chief Executive U+I plc; Merrick Denton-Thompson, the Landscape Institute; John Myers, London YIMBY and Alice Roberts of the CPRE. Paul Finch of Architects’ Journal chaired the discussion, and Saul Collyns reports.

Paul Finch of architects' journalThe green belt tends to provoke passionate debate amongst Londoners, and this was no less true at the London Society debate. Nevertheless, ever keen to move discussions forward (London Society played an instrumental role advocating for its creation in the 1930s), this event aimed to move beyond binary discussions with speakers characterised as ‘for’ or ‘against’, to explore how it can be made fit for the 21st century.

Read More…

Leave a Reply

Peter Murray

img_1051-1Passions run high on all sides in discussions about the future of the Green Belt, but what, if anything, should be done? 

The Green Belt that has wrapped around London since the 1930s was created due, in large part, to the advocacy of the London Society, so we’re again taking the lead by debating how we can make this 20th Century solution for restricting the capital’s growth meet the challenges of the 21st. How could the Green Belt be improved to help the environment and better facilitate new housing?

Previous debates have tended to generate more heat than light, with speakers characterised as “for” or “against” the Green Belt. This London Society event will present a range of views and see if there are any approaches that can satisfy all parties. Speakers will present their thoughts and then be questioned by the Chair and by the audience.

Join us on 4 May for what is sure to be a lively, stimulating and interesting discussion. Tickets are now on sale here 

Speakers include:

  • Richard Knox Johnston, London Green Belt Council
  • Richard Upton, Deputy Chief Executive U+I plc
  • John Myers, London YIMBY
  • Alice Roberts, CPRE
  • Merrick Denton-Thompson, the Landscape Institute

Chaired by Paul Finch, editorial director of the Architects’ Journal

Leave a Reply

Peter Murray

 

nla-big-debateThe London Society, in association with the All Party Parliamentary Group on London’s Planning and Built Environment and New London Architecture, is pleased to announce The Big Debate: Shaping the next London Plan

How do we build a great city for Londoners in a period of major growth?

Have your say on the future shape of the capital at this major free debate on the next London Plan, organised in partnership with leading London associations.

Deputy Mayor for Planning Jules Pipe, and for Housing, James Murray, together with other representatives from City Hall will set out their current thinking, followed by discussion by panels of built environment experts.

Read More…

Leave a Reply

Peter Murray

 

The autumn programme of Society talks, tours, lectures and debates is coming together, and some of the latest additions are below. For the complete list and to book, visit www.londonsociety.org.uk/events 

Please note that several events have already sold out, so to keep up to date with what the Society is organising, sign up to our email newsletterYou can also keep up to date with our schedule via Twitter (@LondonSoc) and Facebook.

You can download this list of forthcoming events here.

Read More…

Leave a Reply

Peter Murray

 

The London Society debated the subject of estate regeneration on 23 June. Four architectural practices brought their long experience of housing to address the question: HTA Design LLP, Levitt Bernstein, Pollard Thomas & Edwards, and PRP. Saul Colyns reports.

As Londoners we live in a city of constant change, yet we retain a strong sense of and longing for community. This was reflected in the theme of this year’s London Festival of Architecture, with many of the events questioning how architecture shapes communities. It was therefore especially pertinent timing to explore estate regeneration and its impact upon communities at this talk.

Altered Estates‘, a report born out of collaboration between Levitt Bernstein, HTA Design, PRP Architects and Pollard Thomas Edwards, who have over 200 years of collective experience working on housing between them, offers recommendations on how to reconcile competing interests in estate regeneration.

Read More…

Leave a Reply