Theory is usually assumed to precede practice but ‘Practice preceding theory’ is the telling sub-title to Patrick Hodgkinson's essay on Leslie Martin on p. 297 of this issue. It is a full year since we published an extended celebration of Martin's work together with his essay ‘The grid as generator’ (arq 4/4). Kenneth Frampton's subsequent Postscript (arq 5/1) placed Martin in a historical perspective. Spurred by Frampton's assessment, Hodgkinson now reminds us how Martin's later theoretical work can be said to have had its origins in the studio's early work.

This thought-provoking reminder comes at a time when, in the UK, architecture's standing as a research-led university discipline remains as low as ever. Once again in the government's recent Research Assessment Exercise no architecture school achieved the highest rating. This was unremarked upon both by the professional press (which was much more interested in the upsets at the top end of the league-table) and by the RIBA (which probably hasn't even noticed and has certainly never grasped the significance of university research). It seems that neither much of the ‘theory’ which so many architecture academics expound nor the odd bit of practice that they manage to undertake is highly rated by the assessors.

This, of course, is not the outcome intended by the 1958 Oxford Conference on Architectural Education (master-minded by Martin) which determined that in future all architects should be educated within the research-led university system. But does the RAE debacle matter? It certainly does. Research-rich schools are better resourced — and that benefits both teaching and practice. We need to take a hard look at why architecture fares so badly — and to question its grouping with construction management and surveying. We must also consider the very nature of university-based architectural research. Hodgkinson is right when he concludes, ‘much thought still needs to be given to architectural theory if it is to raise itself from being purely academic — and therefore practically useful.’

But take a look, too, at the articles on pp. 305 and 312 of this issue. The first, by occasional practitioner and academic Peter Blundell Jones, sets out the case for ‘Working with the given’. In the second, ‘New meanings from old buildings’, Blundell Jones and another practitioner/academic, John Sergeant, appraise three very modest house conversions and extensions designed by them and by David Lea. These architects have evolved their position over many years — developing, through building, discussion and writing, a genuinely sustainable approach to the use of resources. Their buildings may be modest but, together with their writing, they eloquently encapsulate an approach or theory that is increasingly relevant — and utterly practical.

David Porter's letter in arq 5/1 was timely. In recognizing the benefits to be gained from the ‘two-way street’ that connects architectural education and practice, Porter follows on from Robin Webster's plea in arq 4/2 for ‘ordinary’ practitioners to teach ‘a high standard of ordinariness’. Webster's letter was provoked by Dean Hawkes' paper, ‘The architect and the academy’ (arq 4/1), in which he quoted Kahn, Zumthor and Scarpa on education, all regarding teaching as a process of (self) discovery.

Every contributor to arq is sent a number of free copies of the issue by the publisher. Recently, some complimentary copies were despatched to Gunnar Asplund (the author of the ‘document’ paper in arq 5/2) at the Weslch (sic) School of Architecture in Cardiff. They were, of course, meant for Simon Unwin and Christina Johnsson, the introducer and translator of Asplund's inaugural lecture. It may happen again …

As an architect involved in the design of many shopping centres in the UK and Europe over the past 25 years, I feel moved to respond to the interview with Rem Koolhaas in your last issue (arq 5/3). Regrettably, as I write, the Harvard Design School Guide to Shopping is not yet available: I can therefore only comment on the interview.

Max Fordham's perceptive comments (letters, arq 5/3) raise many interesting points on building physics and the environmental performance of buildings. Our article (arq 5/1) summarizes a research project that environmentally analyzed trends in Danish housing design. The results showed that the typical design strategies advocated by ‘traditional’ low-energy and passive housing design methods (large glass areas and heavy thermal mass) are not necessarily the most optimal. Such strategies only take account of the heating demand and do not use modern life-cycle analysis methodologies where the environmental impact of the building materials is also integrated.

Does Giles Oliver (letters, arq 5/3) mean to connect the success of the Tate Modern in ‘sucking in huge crowds’ with the success of architectural education? Both in his view seem suspect achievements. The Tate is not proper architecture — it is too brutish and poorly lit — while current architectural education avoids all that is proper to architecture. His message is that both public and consumer opinion counteth for nought in these matters. But what else have professionals ever said? Particularly the generations brought up to believe that unpopularity was architecture's native condition. Frankly I am rather encouraged by the popularity of supposedly arcane subjects like modern art, modern architecture and architectural education. At least we seem to be getting one thing right. Not that I am advocating complacency. Keeping anything alive in our management sodden culture is tricky, particularly the kind of creative team spirit required to make projects work.

The celebration of Leslie Martin's life and work in arq 4/4 has provoked a steady stream of correspondence about the nature and quality of his contributions to architectural practice, education and research. However, so far absent from this debate has been the voice of any of those who worked in Martin's Shelford studio. Spurred by the issue of the relation of practice to (academic) research, PATRICK HODGKINSON, Martin's first assistant, reflects on some of the projects with which he was involved. This most revealing contribution to the debate raises the whole issue of the nature of architectural research.

Architect-led large-scale public housing schemes were common in the United Kingdom from 1946 right up to 1981. However, over the last twenty years, there has been little significant architectural input into the private sector's large housing developments. Buschow Henley's competition-winning entry for St. Mary's Island (arq 5/3) is therefore one of the first schemes of its kind — and of particular interest to an older generation of architects who virtually specialized in housing. In this short review, BILL UNGLESS who, with his partner, Michael Neylan, was responsible for some of the most humane and successful housing projects of the 1960s and '70s, appraises the St. Mary's Island scheme.

In this essay the author suggests that although the resulting architectural style may be ambiguous, a dialogue with an existing place can be creative, rewarding and appropriate. Just how this might be so is demonstrated in the following article, ‘New meanings from old buildings’, on p.312—331.

The three modest house projects described here are by three fellow travellers — the two authors and David Lea — interested in the Organic side of Modernism. Conversational partners who have worked together in various capacities over many years, they share a common conviction about ‘working with the given’ (pp.305—311).

As the tenth anniversary of the death of Sir James Stirling approaches, Michael Spens considers the relative significance of aspects of his work, both in terms of a sequence of key designs and in the light of contemporaneous critiques. What emerges is a confirmation of the architect's underlying extension of a progressive, enriching modernity. The best work is seen as a rare consummation of the Sublime, as opposed to the Picturesque, within the general continuity of Modernism.

Computers have come to play an important role in architectural practice. Nonetheless, the promise of computation as a creative partner in practice, and a means to better understand and support the design process has yet to be realized. This article considers aspects of computation, and alternative ways that these have been approached in order to make computation useful in architecture and other areas of spatial design.

Last time I was in Glasgow, I met the architect Isi Metzstein in the street and his first words to me were: ‘It's you! I don't know how you can show your face here!’ My book on Mackintosh had just been published, and local papers were carrying headlines like ‘MACKINTOSH AUTISTIC!’