City of London Freemen’s School Dining Hall has been shortlisted for an AJ Architecture Award 2026 in the School Project category (up to £20 million)!

We reimagined the existing assembly hall as a flexible dining and social space for the whole school community. Working closely with @CityofLondon students and staff, we increased capacity and improved access and performance, while bringing in more light, natural materials and a greater sense of welcome.

We care about creating places that feel generous, intuitive and built to last. By listening closely and working collaboratively, we’ve shaped a space that supports the rituals of school life today, while giving Freemen’s the flexibility to evolve in the future.

A huge thank you to our client, collaborators and project teams who helped bring it to life: City of London, Pick Everard, Baily Garner, Eckersley O’Callaghan, Alexander James, and Brinson Staniland Partnership

Photography by Tim Crocker

Last week, we officially launched Common, GPAD’s new collaborative hard-copy newspaper, with an evening of talks, conversation and idea-sharing in Clerkenwell.

The event brought together friends, collaborators, contributors and voices from across the design industry to celebrate the first issue of the publication and the thinking behind it. For us, it was important that Common was launched physically, in person. In an increasingly digital and fast-moving world, the newspaper was conceived as something tangible: a publication that invites reflection, conversation and time away from notifications, scrolling and snap reactions.

Launching it through a live event felt like a natural extension of that ethos.

A huge thank you to Solus for generously hosting us and helping create such a welcoming setting for the evening.

We were also incredibly grateful to our speakers: Lucretia McCarthy, Charles Bettes, Betty Owoo, David Dzakpata, Dr Elisabeth Marlow and Andy Love, who shared fresh perspectives, provocations and ideas spanning design, collaboration, inclusion and practice.

Most importantly, thank you to everyone who joined us on the night, contributed to the paper, and submitted ideas. Common was created as a shared space for exchange and discussion — something co-created with people who have design in common — and the energy in the room reinforced exactly why that matters.

This is only the beginning for Common. We are already planning another ideas-share event and look forward to continuing the conversations sparked by the first issue.

If you would like your own copy of Common, please get in touch with us.

GPAD is launching Common, a new collaborative hard-copy newspaper created to share the ideas, reflections and conversations that shape our work.

Common is not an architecture journal. It is an anti-journal: a space for the ideas, reflections and discussions that sit beside the physical product of architecture and design. It is not about polished projects or perfect images, but about people — collaborators, thinkers, makers — and the shared ground between us.

In a fast, noisy, increasingly digital world, we wanted to make something tangible. Something you can hold, spend time with, return to. A physical newspaper felt like the right format: immediate but lasting, accessible but considered. It asks for a different kind of attention, away from notifications, scrolling and snap reactions. It creates space to pause, reflect and talk about what matters.

Our first issue brings together a range of voices and perspectives. Inside, you’ll find reflections on the ‘missing middle’, conversations on inclusivity in the industry, spotlights on practices and collaborators, and thoughts on value, low-carbon tools and the future of offices. Home renovation stories sit alongside discussions on colour psychology in interior design. Together, they span disciplines and viewpoints, grounded in practice but open to different ways of thinking.

This first issue is just the beginning. Common will continue to evolve, as we do. At its heart is a commitment to staying curious, open and connected — to the exchanges that shape our work and keep ideas moving.

The first issue of the annual paper will launch on 24/04/26 at a party and ideas-share in Clerkenwell, bringing together contributors, collaborators and people from across the design community.

Planning permission has been granted for Ransome’s Dock, a 65,000 sqft mixed use scheme for RD Developments in Wandsworth.

Five new homes placed above the existing warehouses are arranged in a saw-tooth form, drawing on the area’s industrial character. Above the original roofscape, light filled interiors, dramatic volumes and generous external spaces, will create unique dwellings in the sky. The courtyard will also be transformed, introducing biodiverse planting and mature trees that will create a place that can be shared and cherished by the diverse mix of residents and tenants.

The proposal evolves a previous consent, adapting it to meet new regulations, improving the arrival experience, refining commercial spaces, and refreshing the design. A deep understanding of the site acquired over a number of years’ work has informed our approach. Careful adaptations and interventions facilitate the new development, including the insertion of a new access core, and the overhaul of the site’s servicing.

We were able to balance our client’s aspirations for the site with the technical demands of delivering the consent to produce a scheme that could be approved as an amendment application within the spirit of the original scheme.

Ransome’s Dock reflects our commitment to adapting existing buildings, increasing their lifespan and value through thoughtful design interventions.

Thanks to all the collaborators who brought the project this far, Constructive, Rolfe Judd Planning, Consil UK, Bespoke Fire, Caneparo Associates, Mason Navarro Pledge Ltd, Jackson Hickey Consulting Engineers, and Core Five.

81 Blythe Road in Hammersmith has received unanimous planning approval.

The proposal replaces an existing commercial building with five terraced family homes, reworking a previously approved scheme for eight flats by another team. The client brief challenged us to improve deliverability and viability, and we worked hard to achieve this while crafting a building that responds to its context and expresses its own identity.

At GPAD, we utilise the collective skill set and expertise of our team to unlock the potential of complex sites, designing architecture that works for both clients and communities.

Detailed design is well underway. More to come as the project progresses!

Thanks to the team: WK Holdings 1 Ltd MATCH LANDSCAPE & TREE SERVICE, LLC, CarneySweeney, OCSC, Quantem, and Peligro Group.

We were recently invited to pitch for the retrofit of a Central London workplace building. Being one of four studios asked to pitch is nothing new—particularly in a market where speculative workplace developments are limited, and architects are clambering over each other to secure the next project. What was new—at least for us—was the offer to pay us for our involvement.

The benefits of design competitions in shaping the quality of our built environment are well-documented, as are the commercial risks they present to those pitching. However, there is another dimension that often goes overlooked—the human impact.

In recent years, we’ve increasingly been asked to pitch for feasibility work, often for contracts where the potential fee is less than the cost of preparing a competitive submission. The hope, of course, is that these opportunities will lead to a project, a new relationship… something. Yet, on more than one occasion, we’ve been left waiting indefinitely for a decision—despite knowing through industry whispers that projects have progressed—sometimes without even receiving candid feedback.

When pitches go unacknowledged, it sends a message that the countless hours of creative effort invested are not valued. It leaves us questioning the process. Perhaps we could be firmer in turning down such ‘opportunities’, but the pressure to compete often makes unpaid work feel like an inevitable part of winning work. The way competitions are run can have a profound impact on industry morale and the relationships between individuals and organisations.

A poorly run competition not only devalues ideas—it can also affect a practice’s profitability in an already profit-squeezed sector. This squeeze is then passed on to employees, fostering unsustainable working cultures, affecting mental health, and even limiting equitable entry to the profession—particularly when practices struggle to fairly pay entry-level staff.

The human aspect of the competition process deserves greater recognition. Respecting and acknowledging the time, energy, and care that go into these pitches could help mitigate the ripple effects on relationships, working practices, and the people behind the work.

Despite the challenges, we enjoy pitching—the energy it brings to the studio, the rapid pace, and the freedom to explore ideas. It’s difficult to see designs we’ve poured ourselves into left behind after just a few weeks’ work—but losing is part of the game. What we advocate for is a more equitable process, where the value of the work is recognised by those setting the brief.

For this particular pitch, we experimented with a new way of presenting our ideas—an approach we’re excited to refine further. If you’re curious to see it, drop me a message—we’d love to hear your feedback as we develop it for future projects.

We didn’t win this one (congratulations to Morris+Company), but we want to thank Global Holdings Management Group for inviting us, conducting the process with respect, and valuing the work of all four participants. We hope more organisations follow their lead—whether through financial contributions or simply by acknowledging the energy and creativity that goes into competing for work.

On to the next one…