黑洞社区

Nowadays, it seems clear that the bigger the infrastructure project, the greater the need to demonstrate benefit to society and for value to be added beyond base metrics to achieve lasting social, economic and environmental benefits.  Sadly, often the opposite is true, with projects following a banal, linear process, focused on 鈥渄elivery鈥� 鈥� while 鈥渄esign鈥� is limited to superficial window-dressing where architects or landscape architects are briefly introduced to 鈥渕itigate鈥� the effects of narrow thinking or to 鈥渟ell鈥� a scheme to a design review panel. 

Even that limited role is omitted where no need is perceived, resulting in an increasing quality gulf between different areas, fuelling disparities in land values, health and social mobility and causing greater daily movements of people and higher demand on transport infrastructure. This is a costly, self-destructive cycle.

In considering design, the scenario is often: 鈥榯oo early鈥� too early 鈥� whoops 鈥� too late鈥�

In considering design at the planning, procurement and delivery phases, the scenario is often: 鈥渢oo early 鈥� too early 鈥� whoops 鈥� too late鈥�. Yet it would take relatively few, high-profile projects to create change in the mindset of clients and their consultants for good.

Greater ambition from government (via the National Infrastructure Commission) and stronger leadership from executive clients (including Highways England, Network Rail and HS2) to demand, define and secure high-quality design before projects are granted planning permission 鈥� which is used to endorse and enforce it through contractual obligations on designers, whether they work for clients or contractors 鈥� could bring radical, lasting improvements. By returning design to the forefront, visionary infrastructure projects can redefine outcomes for people and ensure our built legacy is celebrated by future generations.