Readers enjoying Architectural Record’s free online content got a wake-up call in late May: a paywall for articles older than 30 days. Now to access “the archive,” one must subscribe to the publication or sign up for an online subscription ($20/year). Thus, Record, one of the oldest surviving publications on architecture, joins the ranks of The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, which in recent years have asked readers to pony up for full online access. Record’s move sent a jolt through the Twitterati of the architecture and design world, who speculated on what other pubs might follow. No paywall plans for us, Metropolis and Architect cheerfully tweeted back. Thanks to its high volume of online traffic, Record can afford to experiment with paid content, even if it means stymying some potential readers. On Reddit’s architecture site, a recent post that asked “What design do you like best?” and included a link to Record received the reply: “I like the one that doesn’t link to the F—ING PAYWALL.”
Copies of AN‘s newest edition should be arriving in offices across the Midwest this week. With the mix of news, opinion, gossip, commentary, products, and projects that makes The Architect’s Newspaper a must read, the Midwest edition seeks to enrich the conversation within and across disciplines and showcase the talent in the eight state region. It’s free for architects and architectural designers in Illionois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin, so subscribe today.
We look forward to getting to know our new readers, so spread the word. As always we welcome your tips, compliments, and, yes, your occasional gripes. Contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
First the cracks, and now this? Sure, Peter Eisenman’s Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe in Berlin has seen its fair share of controversies over the years, but it doesn’t get much worse than a fashion shoot for an in-flight magazine. According to the New Statesman‘s scoop, easyJet had no idea the Holocaust memorial had been used as the backdrop for a bunch of models because its magazine is produced by an outside company. That company has yet to speak up about the matter, so it remains unclear whether the fine folks at INK publishing are ignorant or just stupid. Looks like Hannah Arendt is right once again. Read More