the-sheet.com Your Architecture Resource

He was the anarchist of 1980s design, but the technical wizardry in his current London show feels over-polished and out of touch

Unless you die young, it's difficult to be a hero for ever. Heroes are commercialised. They succumb to what Norman Mailer called "exhaustion of the will". Or they simply go out of fashion. And that's what happened to Ron Arad – or at least, that's what we thought had happened. But the Israeli-born, London-based designer of bold, sculptural furniture has never been more ubiquitous. In the last year, a major retrospective of his work has bounced from the Centre Pompidou in Paris to the Museum of Modern Art in New York, recently landing at London's Barbican.

Arad is one of the design world's few nameable stars. Most people will probably know his Tom Vac chair (1993), a rippled plastic armchair on steel legs that once abounded in cool restaurants. Or perhaps his bestselling Bookworm bookshelf, a flexible ribbon that holds your books in a spiral. But these are merely the outward signs of his commercial success. He also works as an artist, selling one-off pieces for sometimes hundreds of thousands of pounds, and as an architect and teacher. Over the last decade he has been hugely influential at the Royal College of Art, where he was head of the Design Products department until last year. Arad wasn't interested in teaching people how to be professional industrial designers: he wanted to teach them how to think for themselves, and a generation of designers graduated wanting to work just as he did – as a designer-maker, free from the technical constraints set by manufacturers.

To understand Arad the hero, visitors to the Barbican show should head straight up to the mezzanine galleries to soak up his early work from the 1980s. There they'll find a stereo and speakers encased in concrete, which look as though they've been hauled off a building site or hacked from a sea wall. Can you imagine a rougher envelope for all that delicate technology? So much for the precious, garish styling of the designer decade. Arad, recently graduated from the Architectural Association, had broken out of architecture to do his own thing. His work was raw and muscular, but also rich and clever.

It all started with an old leather car seat bolted to some scaffolding pipes. The Rover chair (1981), an emblem of Britain's fading car industry spliced with some DIY high-tech structure, was an instant punk icon, the furniture equivalent of the Sex Pistols' ransom-note typography. Before Arad had even noticed any connection to the prevailing counter-culture, Jean-Paul Gaultier was knocking on his door to buy six. He went on to hammer metal into clunky thrones such as the Tinker chair (1988), and turn looped steel sheets into a parody of your auntie's upholstered armchair in the Well-Tempered chair (1986). It was visceral stuff, and what's more, it looked like he was having fun.

Fast forward two decades to this show, and you see the Rover chair again – except this time it's made of flawless chrome. The sheer shininess of it epitomises everything that went wrong with design in the noughties. Galleries were falling over themselves to produce ultra-expensive limited editions for a growing collectors' market buoyed by the economic bubble. You want your chair in Carrara marble? You got it. The bling world of design-art was too often about expense for the sake of it. It was an upgrade of materials, but not of imagination.

None of that is Arad's fault. He had been blurring the distinction between design and art for decades, and we should thank him for it. It's not boundary-crossing that's the problem, it's the fact that the edginess of Arad's work has been replaced by a flabby, over-polished mannerism. It's too slick. Take a series of recent rocking chairs called the Voids (an apt name): no doubt they are technically impressive, but whether they're made of tiger-stripe acrylic or lacquered aluminium, there's no disguising that the designs are utterly vacuous. His architecture is even worse – this exhibition gives him so much credit for also being an architect that you wonder whether the curators have actually looked at these buildings. They're heinous: scaled-up, self-indulgent gewgaws.

Arad has been an early adopter of new materials and technologies – he used rapid prototyping (a method of 3D printing using plastic resin) to make a series of fruit bowls, and he incorporated text messaging into a chandelier for Swarovski – but often abandons them before he's achieved anything of substance. The show is a celebration of his magpie ingenuity, but you won't find much under the surface. Arad's work is all technique. It's pure expression through materials, form and movement. That means you can only judge it using taste. One of his giant rocking chairs (he loves rocking chairs) or overblown bookcases will bring someone a sudden jolt of pure joy, while the person next to them will retch. He's the design equivalent of Marmite.

The superbness of it all is part of the problem. It's so bombastic that it doesn't leave you any room to be you – Arad is too busy blinding you with who he is. There is no sociological dimension to his work; it's not about people, it's about him.

The reason why this show feels out of touch is that we've moved on. Sure, Arad helped erode the boundaries of design, but which boundaries are we interested in? If design is going to rediscover its sense of purpose, it has to crossbreed with other disciplines, from biotechnology to healthcare. The most interesting contemporary designers are already crossing those thresholds; Arad, though, feels like he's been left far behind.

The Sheet Architecture News Architecture, Art, Art and design, Culture, Design, Exhibitions, guardian.co.uk, Reviews

Jonathan Woolf and Bharat Patel's radical reimagining of a north London semi-detached house calls into question all our notions about suburban living, writes Rowan Moore

Suburbia is the place people love to mock. It is the place whence writers and artists used to escape, so that they could make a career scouring its pettiness and restrictions. It is reviled by planners and architects. Suburbia, in which four-fifths of British people live (depending on how you define it), is accused of being stifling, ugly, boring, antisocial and environmentally destructive.

Planning policy, led by Lord Rogers's Urban Task Force of over a decade ago, has championed the opposite of suburbs: compact, dense, "vibrant" cities on the continental model. Now, though, there is a backlash or, rather, something more suburbanly genteel. A back-waft, perhaps, or a crooked little finger raised in a somewhat adversarial manner.

Paul Barker's recent book The Freedoms of Suburbia praised its "blessedly anarchic form". Trendy young architects now point out the virtues of the semi-detached and teach students at architecture schools to study the hidden social structures of suburbia. The mayor of London set up an Outer London Commission to support those commuter zones that largely got him elected. The country's smarter property developers are exploring what a contemporary suburban home could be.

The first purpose of the Painted House, in an outer area of north-west London, is to be a home for a family of 11 people spread over three generations, but it is also what its architect, Jonathan Woolf, calls a "model" for other developments. It shows what a large semi-d in a leafy avenue can be.

The Painted House occupies the exact footprint and volume of a pair of 1920s semi-detached houses that previously stood on its site, but is different in almost every detail from the suburban norm. Its owners had wanted a contemporary, flat-roofed house similar to others Woolf has designed, but local residents and planners insisted it follow the gabled, bay-windowed form of its neighbours.

This it now does, but without decorative trimmings. Its front is simplified and all brick, provoking a couple of double-takes. Is it an interwar semi or a sculptural image of one, a late derivation of Rachel Whiteread's concrete houses? And is it one house or is it two? One of the two front doors is half-concealed, allowing you to read it as a single dwelling, but the symmetrical pairing of its gables and bays makes it look like two houses.

The exterior is on the severe side and were it not for a certain quality in the brick and the details it might look like an austere postwar reconstruction of a doodlebug victim. The real surprise is when you go inside. Instead of a crabby, tricky assembly of parlours and halls, you find an expansive array of simple, generous, white-walled, light-filled rooms.

It all revolves around the kitchen which, in such a large family, is in use all day. Around here, different satellites orbit: a gym, a home office and the bedrooms and suites occupied by two brothers and their wives, parents and children. There is also a shrine to their Jain faith. Thanks to ample storage, all is exceptionally tidy, but not oppressively so, even in the children's rooms. "I think kids become tidy if you give them the right spaces," says one of the brothers.

There is, as yet, no art on the walls. "It's quite difficult to agree on art when there are 11 different opinions," he says.

The basic style is Shoreditch Loft Contemporary. It is superficially much as decent metropolitan architects have been turning out these last two decades, but it has a looseness, or a lack of uptightness, that sets it apart. On the top floor, the hipped, gabled roof of the exterior is allowed to shape a rich interior of triangles, slopes and facets that Woolf calls both "Elizabethan" and "well-mannered Frank Gehry".

Nor does the design fetishise materials, as other minimalist architecture does, as with rare pieces of oak, or pietra serena or Carrara marble imported at great expense. "People now can have whatever materials they want," says Woolf, "and they do. People use materials as a statement. But I wanted to achieve dignity and character without resorting to the emporium of world materials on our doorstep. I was just interested in form and paint."

This is why it is called the Painted House and Jonathan Woolf's approach contributes to the livability of the place and its absence of preciousness. As to whether it is one house or two, the question remains open. It is currently inhabited as a single, diffuse spread of differently proportioned and oriented rooms, but it has two staircases and a wall down its middle and it could easily be made back into two houses, if desired and required.

The question about suburbia is whether it is conformist and controlling or, as Barker claims, liberating. Is it a place of pointless etiquette and social codes, of competitive respectability and petty restriction, or does it allow people to do whatever they want, to be poets, or white witches, or the swingers of suburban myth?

The fact that the Painted House struggled with the planners suggests that conformity had the upper hand, but the virtues of the completed house are its openness to change and the freedom it offers to inhabit it in many different ways.

As to whether it is a model for others, its success is helped by its ample size – at about 750 square metres, it is four or five times as large as the average house. But its virtues of flexibility, adaptability and diversity within simplicity should be applicable anywhere.

• This article was amended on Tuesday, 9 March 2010 because we omitted to credit Bharat Patel as one of the people who "reimagined" the Painted House in conjunction with Jonathan Woolf.

The Sheet Architecture News Architecture, Art and design, Culture, Design, Features, Reviews, The Observer

Despite its wobbly beginnings, the capital's giant ferris wheel has become a much-loved symbol of London. And even urban sprawl seems beautiful from the top

Tony Blair officially opened the London Eye on 31 December 1999. But it was only after a number of technical glitches had been sorted out that the public was finally allowed aboard in March 2000 – 10 years ago this week. Since then, well over 30 million people have taken the vertiginous but breathtaking half-hour journey, in air-conditioned capsules, up and around what was, until two years ago, the world's biggest ferris wheel. That honour now belongs to the Singapore Flyer; with a height of 165 metres, it outranks the London Eye by a full 30 metres. But, while the Flyer looks like a gigantic version of a 19th-century original (the first of the breed, designed by George Washington Ferris, began revolving at the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago), the London Eye is a fighter jet to Singapore's biplane. The Eye has since become as much a part of tourist London as Westminster Abbey, the Tower and Big Ben; a friendly curiosity, an urban eye-catcher, and an engineering wonder to compare with the Eiffel Tower.

When it was first announced, though, it was hard not to think that the London Eye was going to be some sort of Victorian throwback, an enormous music hall-era fun-fair ride among London's new wave of challenging millennium monuments– Tate Modern, the Millennium Bridge and the Millennium Dome itself. At the time of its opening, the joke went that the Eye was a perfect symbol of contemporary British political culture, going around and around uselessly and getting nowhere in the process.

When, however, the design by the architects Marks Barfield was unveiled, most doubts were cast aside. The husband-and-wife team had come up with a striking and rather beautiful hi-tech big wheel. It wasn't just the high-spec design that drew attention, it was the bravura manner in which the Eye's prefabricated components were brought up the Thames on river barges to Jubilee Gardens, and the week-long drama during which, inch by inch, the giant wheel was raised from the river and up into place alongside County Hall. Now, every view in and through Westminster, and along the Thames, was changed. Suddenly, this spidery and beautifully resolved ferris wheel crowned Victorian terraces, filled unexpected views along avenues of plane trees and sat like a tiara atop government offices.

Perhaps its best aspect is that it also offers awe-inspiring and uninterrupted views over London. From up top on a clear day, the entire city can be peered down upon and encompassed. The patterns of London's growth can be seen spreading into subtopia and the green belt like rings marking the age of venerable trees. Rides on the Eye in rain, snow or at night offer their own haunting attractions.

Of London's deafeningly trumpeted rival millennium projects, the Eye has been, perhaps, the most endearing. The Dome was undermined by the unforgivably crass and soulless Millennium Experience exhibition of 2000; it was many years before it redeemed itself as today's O2 music venue. The Millennium Bridge linking Tate Modern and St Paul's Cathedral wobbled, and it was some while before its virtues could be discerned. Tate Modern became almost too popular for its own good, a heaving cultural souk – acutely in need of its planned extension – where art can occasionally be seen between massed heads and shoulders. Other millennium projects, such as the refurbishment of the Royal Opera House, were fine things, yet tame in terms of fresh design.

The London Eye was always a brave and daring adventure, a throwback to 1951's Festival of Britain, held on the same site – an era when Britain could still claim to lead the world (just) in supersonic-era design and engineering. It looks to the past as well as the future.

The Sheet Architecture News Architecture, Art and design, Comment, Culture, Design, Engineering, guardian.co.uk, Technology

From the Pyramide du Louvre to Qatar's Museum of Islamic Art, we look back at the daring and elegant designs that made architect IM Pei a household name

The Sheet Architecture News Architecture, Art and design, China, Culture, Design, Editorial, guardian.co.uk, United States, World news

Croydon gave the world Kate Moss, but can it ever be sexy? An exciting team of young planners are set to revive the south London suburb and blaze a trail for all British towns, writes Rowan Moore

Recently the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games announced that they had completed their "food vision". I won't dwell on what this was, but it was final proof that the word "vision" has suffered drastic devaluation. Once it applied to the experiences of exalted saints and prophets, which inspired dazzling paintings and books of the Bible. Now it means something slightly stronger than "memo".

The suburban borough of Croydon has also been subject to repeated "visions" over the past two decades, namely Croydon: The Future; Vision 20:20 and Will Alsop's Third City. Famous architects have zipped in and flourished brightly coloured images that turn Croydon's pervasive grey into flashes of neon, and striven to find an inner Manhattan in its array of towers.

There have been TV shows and articles, mostly with same shtick: Croydon is sexy, really. Yet, as Emma Peters, head of planning, regeneration and conservation, pithily remarks: "Every time we have another vision we've declined economically." From 1995 to 2005, when employment in London grew by 18%, in Croydon it grew not at all.

The borough hasn't given up, however, which is why I find myself sitting with a group of planners who are trying to make the place better. Opposite me is Finn Williams, pale and delicate as a consumptive poet, who looks a decade younger than his 27 years. To one side is Vincent Lacovara, 31, and to the other Tom Sweeney, aged 35. They are describing the deals they are making with heavyweight developers, and their efforts to steer many millions of pounds of investment to beneficial effect.

Planners aren't supposed to look like this. Normally you expect them to be worn and middle-aged, and to have turned the colour of manila through blending with their environment, as certain moths come to resemble tree bark. Williams, Lacovara and Sweeney are signs of the borough's intent to do things differently. It is a long-standing ambition, given new impetus by the arrival in 2007 of Jon Rouse as the borough's chief executive. Rouse, a former chief excutive of both the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment and the Housing Corporation, is one of the country's more effective civil servants.

The selection of this young band of planners could just be another doomed attempt to sex up Croydon, but what is striking is their determination not to do another "vision". "Every plan for Croydon," says Williams, "has always been desperate to undo the mistakes of the previous plan." Lacovara adds: "The first question people ask when we consult them is: 'Is anything going to happen this time?'"

They embody the attitude of many young architects, which is to take things as you find them rather than impose a grand plan, and to find the spirit of the place, even if that place is not particularly charming. In the 18th century, Capability Brown talked of genius loci in the design of landscapes. These contemporary architects apply the same attitude to office blocks, rather than hills and woods. They also think there's something good about suburbs, in contrast with older architects such as Lord Rogers, for whom dense, Barcelona-like cities are everything.

In the case of Croydon the place was once delightful enough for the Archbishop of Canterbury to build his holiday home there, and it keeps fragments of its ancient past. It was then a stolid Victorian town, before the spread of London's semi-detached suburbia absorbed it into the metropolis. In the 1960s, thanks to a quirk of official policy, it boomed. The government wanted to push new office development out of the centre of London, with the result that it migrated to Croydon.

Its distinctive skyline of stubby towers was created, but when policy was reversed, so was the boom. Croydon has struggled ever since, with BT the latest business to move out. It has resumed its status as a place that prompts faint sniggers among metropolitan types, despite being the location of the world's first international airport, and the town where Malcolm McLaren pioneered punk. It may have given the world Kate Moss, but she now lives elsewhere. Terry Major-Ball, the gnome-selling brother of John Major, was the Croydon resident who stayed.

Yet it is only 15 minutes by train from central London, and the borough's mixture of suburban semis, detached houses and terraced streets mean that there are homes for every stage of life ("nursery to nursing home" as Lacovara puts it). And given the desperate hunger for homes in southern England, it can't be impossible to make it into a place where people want to live. Much of it already is, but the centre remains problematic.

Williams and co don't want to make it into something it is not, but a better version of what it is now. Their proposals are mostly quite obvious, like building a bridge across dividing railway tracks, planting trees, removing the most destructive 1960s road systems, and making it possible to access public places now cut off by roads. But they also get developers to think about what's good and/ or distinctive about Croydon, such as its tendency to place little and large buildings, and ancient and modern ones, side by side.

Above all, although they stress that previous visions left behind ideas of value, like opening up the buried river Wandle, they want something to happen this time. In this they are not just a bunch of young turks, but part of a collective effort that includes more experienced officers such as Emma Peters. This effort includes the creation of delivery vehicles and joint ventures and other devices too technical to be digested over Sunday breakfast, but none the less important. If they succeed, they could finally make Croydon an example that other towns will follow.

Why the new-look US embassy is a lump

There are some things to like about the designs for the new US embassy, unveiled last week. That it is moving from posh Mayfair to tattier Battersea is good for both places, as the residents of one hated the effects of security barriers, while the other could do with the investment.

It claims to be exceptionally green, and its architects KieranTimberlake have a record that makes this believable. The design deals with the immense security measures by trying to disguise them as landscaping, which is at least tactful, while the intricate surfaces shown in the images give an air of quality.

Yet it is a lump. A green, well-dressed, diplomatic lump, but still an ungainly, dominating object that makes minimal attempt to relate to its surroundings. There is no sense that it will join with its existing and future neighbours in creating a cohesive piece of city. It will be a singular object that will loom awkwardly over what is already a disjointed area of London.

For this blame does not only attach to the state department or the architects, but also to the inability of London's planners, from the mayor down, to plan in three dimensions. Battersea was identified as a place of opportunity under Ken Livingstone, meaning that it would be a place where office towers could flourish, yet there has been minimal investment in designing what kind of places this new development might create.

What will make this area succeed or fail is not the artistry of individual facades, but the kind of places that will be made by several buildings working together. And, yes, as many have pointed out, the embassy does look like a Norman keep, complete with moat. We all know it has to be exceptionally bomb-proof, but was it really necessary to rub this point in?

The Sheet Architecture News Architecture, Art and design, Culture, Design, Features, The Observer

Our new critic admires the Japanese precision and flow of a spectacular, otherwordly campus building in Switzerland

I am mesmerised. As far as I can see, in every direction, there are undulations, clad in grey carpet, glass, white metal, fragmentary views of a nondescript beyond. Everything is flow, without doors or steps, and other people appear as silhouettes on the many internal horizons that the building creates. It is like some filmic vision of the afterlife, possibly 1960s vintage. Except that here the eternal is calibrated by frequent, identical, impeccably precise Rolex clocks.

You can see the undulations as hills, perhaps a reference to the nearby Alps, and a representative of the architects describes the composition as "musical". So the hills are alive, I think irreverently and irrelevantly, with the sound of music.

At which point Kazuyo Sejima descends a slope. She is slight and poised, dressed with playful elegance in a ruched black skirt, and is not really much like Julie Andrews.

Sejima is one half of Sanaa, a Japanese practice that is the latest recruit to the pantheon of Rems, Zahas, Gehrys and Herzogs, that is to say the band of architects who by some global critical consensus are considered the best in the world, and who are invited to compete against each other for the design of museums, concert halls and other cultural buildings in three or four continents. The mesmerising building is the £65m Rolex Learning Centre in the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL). It is their biggest and most spectacular work to date.

It can only be a matter of time before the Pritzker prize, the architectural Nobel worth $100,000 (£64,000) to the winner, is sent Sanaa's way. Last year they designed the Serpentine Gallery's annual pavilion. This year Sejima has been invited to direct the Venice Architecture Biennale, whose president has described her, in terms that employ a curious sense of gender, as "one of the new masters of the new millennium".

The interesting thing about the 54-year-old Sejima and her more pugnacious partner, Ryue Nishizawa, who is a decade younger, is that they are elusive. They have no manifesto or house style or signature: yes, they mostly use white metal, concrete and glass, but so do many other architects. They work ferociously hard: I have visited their Tokyo office at 9pm on a Saturday and seen their grey-faced staff gearing up for many hours' work ahead. People use words about them such as "strong" and "brave", and for Sejima to succeed in the masculine world of Japanese architecture she could be little else. But this work and courage is in the service of something undefined.

They are most comfortable when talking about their work. The Rolex Learning Centre is a new heart for a campus of 7,000 students and 4,000 research and academic staff, and includes a library, offices, bookshop, cafe, restaurant, laboratories, a 600-seat auditorium and a branch of Credit Suisse bank. Sanaa's big idea is to make it into "one huge big room", a 10,000 square metre territory where corridors are abolished and enclosures minimal.

"The main aim is to make a space for people to stay together," says Sejima, "but where you can also have some privacy." The design reflects their idea of "softening boundaries". She opposes "programmes that say a room is a place to learn and a corridor is a place to relax. I do not think that is a way to learn. Sometimes, activities become continuous. You might have a coffee outside the classroom and change your opinion."

The role of architecture is to suggest ways to use the space, rather than to prescribe. Nishizawa pushes the analogy with landscape: "When people find valleys, they tend to settle there and build villages. When they find a hill, they like to build a beautiful cafe on the hill. When they find slopes, they cover them in terraces." In the same way, they think their artificial hills will prompt different kinds of occupation: "We hope students can find nice places for themselves."

What they have come up with in Lausanne is the work of an age of smoothness and flow. It is a place without the darkness of old libraries, a place where abundant knowledge can be accessed without friction or fear. If you could live inside an iPad it would look something like this. It is a playground, a hippie utopia adapted for future masters of a technological universe – for the college it serves trains people to make ever more brilliant software, or watches, or medical procedures, in the future. This is why the centre's sponsor, Rolex, is interested in imprinting its brand. It means that it can acquire the best students for itself.

The building is also an alternative reality in an area of the world that specialises in such things. Underground, not far away, Cern's Large Hadron Collider is applying colossal power to the pursuit of the esoteric. The International Olympic Committee, with its idealised view of world harmony, is based in Lausanne. The Blue Brain Project, which is constructing a computer simulation of the mammalian brain, is being run by the EPFL's Brain and Mind Institute. Inside the learning centre you feel as if familiar things – hills, valleys, sky, inside, outside, natural, artificial – have been rearranged in a strange and wondrous way.

It verges on the spooky and there are also times when more mundane reality impinges in awkward ways. Sanaa and local authorities didn't see eye to eye on the best ways to achieve disabled access, with the result that some awkward ramps intrude on the flow, along with raised strips to help blind people find fire exits. Prosaic facts of construction, like curves that are a bit lumpy, get in the way.

But it is still an astonishing place. It is also a place which, for all its otherworldliness, reinstates your sense of yourself. The slopes, like real hills, require you to exercise your body. The point of the building is the importance of physical rather than virtual proximity. When pressed, Sanaa eventually come up with the elusive thing for which they fight so hard: "Our focus is always to find different relationships." It sounds flat and yet its realisation in the learning centre is anything but.

The Sheet Architecture News Architecture, Art and design, Culture, Design, Features, Reviews, The Observer

Exhibition by trailblazing Israeli-born designer, architect and artist opens in London, his hometown for more than 35 years

There are bookshelves that bounce and roll, cutlery that pirouettes, a chandelier that you can text and chairs. Lots and lots of chairs. In what may be one of the most comfortable exhibitions of recent years, Britain's first major Ron Arad retrospective opens tomorrow.

The Barbican's art gallery in London is following up major shows it has held on Corbusier and Alvar Aalto by devoting three months to a designer, architect and artist still very much alive and working. Arad, who was born in Israel but has been based in London for more than 35 years, said he hoped anyone "interested in things" would visit.

The head of art galleries at the ­Barbican, Kate Bush, said: "We want to pay tribute to Ron Arad's very special place in the world of design. He is an incredibly important figure and this exhibition lays out his vision and his process as it has evolved over 30 years."

The show is divided into sections with names such as Volumising, Rolling, Superforming and Scavenging, where one of Arad's most celebrated chairs – the Rover chair, which uses a car seat salvaged from a scrap yard – is exhibited.

Then there is the Failing section, displaying designs that weren't taken up, or were misconceived. That includes the "table that eats chairs" in which chairs can be folded underneath the table top. "I think it was too complicated for the manufacturer," said the show's curator Lydia Yee, "but Ron's still confident that someone will come along."

There have been recent Arad shows at the Pompidou in Paris and Moma in New York, but the one in London was completely ­different, said its curator, Lydia Yee. "Ron wanted to do something new in his home town and we wanted … to show his ­interest in new materials and in new technologies."

There is a crystal chandelier called Lolita which has more than a thousand embedded LED lights and its own mobile number to which one can send texts, which are then displayed.

Arad and his studio have also created mechanical tricks to show off some of the pieces such as a long moving platform for bookshelves called "reinventing the wheel". The idea is that you can roll your bookshelves where you would like them – perfect for the indecisive – but there is a wheel within the wheel so the books remain upright.

For many, Arad will be best known for his chairs, many of which are on display and which are most definitely not for sitting on. A large section of the gallery will, however, contain chairs where visitors can take the weight off their feet and – should they wish – play table tennis on a stainless steel ping pong table designed by Arad to suit his game.

The Sheet Architecture News Architecture, Art, Art and design, Culture, Design, Exhibitions, Installation, Life and style, News, Sculpture, The Guardian, UK news

A 20 metre high Thomas Heatherwick structure at Shanghai Expo will show Britain at the cutting edge in design and business

Britain may have spawned the Swinging Sixties, punk, Cool Britannia and numerous hot designers in the past 50 years, but for many Chinese, it's still a place where Oliver Twist is stumbling through a pea-souper, and horsedrawn carriages clatter along the cobbles.

The British government has set itself the task of changing that perception forever, by wowing the 70 million visitors to this year's Shanghai Expo — with a £25m see-through "seed cathedral".

British designer Thomas Heatherwick, known for distinctive works such as Manchester's The B of the Bang, has created a 20 metre high building made up of 60,000 transparent acrylic filaments, each of which holds a seed from Kew Gardens' huge Millennium Seed Bank – a worldwide project to preserve a quarter of the world's plant species.

The government, which has stumped up most of the £25m cost of the project, hopes that as the 7.5 metre long spikes sway gently in the breeze, potential Chinese investors will be inspired to bring their business to Britain, UK exporters will be inspired to strike up new contacts, and Chinese students will be attracted to the idea of studying here.

"The Chinese view of Britain is a rather old-fashioned one; it's all to do with Britain as being a heritage country, a traditional economy – there's an awful lot of cobblestones and fog," said Sir Andrew Cahn, director of UK Trade and Investment, which has the job of promoting Britain abroad. "We think of Britain as a cutting-edge, forward-looking country."

Having just returned from seeing the pavilion almost completed in Shanghai last week, Cahn said he was uncharacteristically passionate. "I'm a world-weary 58-year-old civil servant not given to enthusiasms, but I got very excited about this building."

Heatherwick said the brief laid down by the Chinese organisers of the Expo was, "Better City, Better Life," and he had been inspired by the fact that – despite its reputation for fog and Victorian grime – Britain pioneered public parks and botanical gardens. "Each of these tiny little seeds has boundless potential - to feed us, to cure disease - and that seemed to be a good symbol for the British contribution," he said.

Heatherwick is perhaps best known for "B of the Bang," the 56 metre high metal starburst built to mark the Manchester Commonwealth Games in 2002, which had to be dismantled last year amid safety fears about its giant metal spikes.

UKTI plans to hold more than a hundred business events in Shanghai and other Chinese cities during the six months of the Expo, and the pavilion's five private sector sponsors, including drug firm AstraZeneca and Barclays bank, will be able to use its "VIP rooms" to hold meetings.

China is spending $55bn (£35bn) – more than twice the cost of the Beijing Olympics – on the monumental Shanghai showcase, which will include almost 250 pavilions, and is expected to draw up to 70 million visitors.

British business has been criticised for being slow to realise the potential of the rapidly expanding Chinese market, which the government believes will be critical for helping to generate a solid recovery from the deepest recession in a generation.

The Sheet Architecture News Architecture, Art and design, Business, China, Design, guardian.co.uk, News, Shanghai, World news

Lynsey Hanley (Comment, 2 February) puzzles why Design for Homes has not joined in attacks on the Homes and Communities Agency's housebuilding rescue plans. She worries that the HCA awarded emergency funds to unbuilt schemes which scored badly in desktop reviews. These desktop reviews used a matrix called Building for Life, which I wrote in April 2002 so that housebuilding's many professions could have a common language for assessing how accessible, safe and welcoming a new-build development is. The matrix works well when visiting built schemes, but it can be very unreliable without a site visit supported by background knowledge. In 2008 Lynsey was one of several judges who honoured developments on the basis of Building for Life reviews. One of the "winners" is already reported in its local paper to be "a hub for antisocial behaviour a year after first residents moved in".

Building for Life is like a race meeting form card. It give you one person's calculation of the odds for success. But ultimately privileged knowledge of the track and the runners should guide your selection – which is how the HCA works with its local procurement teams. Design for Homes remains unconvinced that remote desktop reviews should be the overriding process for deciding how £1bn of public money should be wagered.

David Birkbeck

Chief executive, Design for Homes

• Your correspondents do not do justice to the Kickstart programme managed by the HCA (Letters, 5 February). While Building for Life assessments provide an important initial quality check, these are supplemented by our own local design teams. In fact we rejected 11 schemes outright on the basis of poor design quality. Kickstart is so far unlocking more than 10,000 much-needed new homes and maintaining capacity and safeguarding jobs in the housebuilding industry.

Bob Kerslake

Homes and Communities Agency

The Sheet Architecture News Architecture, Art and design, Design, Housing, Letters, Politics, Public services policy, Society, The Guardian

Design watchdog hits out at plans for £20m visitor centre at megalithic jewel in England's cultural crown

Its footpaths are "tortuous", the roof likely to "channel wind and rain" and its myriad columns – meant to evoke a forest – are incongruous with the vast landscape surrounding it.

So says the government's design ­watchdog over plans for a controversial £20m visitor centre at Stonehenge, the megalithic jewel in England's cultural crown. CABE, the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, has criticised the design of the proposed centre, claiming the futuristic building by Denton Corker Marshall does little to enhance the 5,000-year-old standing stones which attract more than 800,000 visitors each year.

Its concerns are the latest chapter in the long saga surrounding the English Heritage-backed project, and follow a ­government decision two years ago to scrap on cost grounds a highly ambitious £65m scheme to build a tunnel to reroute traffic to protect the World Heritage site.

The centre, which has been approved by Wiltshire county council planners, has divided opinion.

"We question whether, in this landscape of scale and huge horizons and with a very robust end point that has stood for centuries and centuries, this is the right design approach?" said Diane Haigh, CABE's director of design review.

"You need to feel you are approaching Stonehenge. You want the sense you are walking over Salisbury Plain towards the stones."

But the "twee little winding paths" were "more appropriate for an urban ­garden" than the "big scale open air ­setting the stones have", she added.

The many columns were meant to be "lots of trunks" holding up a "very delicate roof", she said. "Is this the best approach on what is actually a very exposed site. In particular, if it's a windy, rainy day, as it is quite often out there, it's not going to give you shelter. We are concerned it's very stylish nature will make it feel a bit dated in time, unlike the stones which have stood the test of time".

CABE believed the location of the ­centre, at Airman's Corner, is good, and were pleased "something was happening at last", but questioned the "architectural approach". The centre has the full support of local architects on the Wiltshire Design Forum, and has been passed by the local planning committee. Nevertheless English Heritage recognised it was an emotional and divisive subject.

"Innovative architectural designs will always polarise opinion, and often nowhere more so that within the architectural world itself," it said in a statement.

"The Stonehenge project has to overcome a unique set of challenges," it said. "This has required a pragmatic approach and, following widespread consultation, we maintain the current plans offer the best solution".

Stephen Quinlan, partner at Denton Corker Marshall, defended the design. The roof was meant to be a "sun canopy" and not offer weather protection in what was, principally "an outdoor experience".

"It's not an iconic masterpiece. It's a facility to help you appreciate the Stonehenge landscape. It's intellectually ­deferential in a big, big way to Stonehenge as a monument.

"I wouldn't even mind if you couldn't remember what the building looked like when you left. The visitor centre is not the destination," Quinlan said.

However, he added: "We don't take criticism from CABE lightly. And we are ­crawling through their comments to see if there are any improvements we can make."

The Sheet Architecture News Architecture, Art and design, Culture, Design, Heritage, News, Stonehenge, England, The Guardian, Travel, UK news