Quote:
Originally Posted by mr angry
Aidan,
I like virtually everything built before about 1955-60 ish, from then on it gets a little selective. I did'nt like the CIS at first but it sort of grew on me now I think it is a kind of dramatic entry to the city from Cheetham Hill Road, especially at night.
To be fair, some from the late '70s and early/mid 80s are OK, they were brick and match the surroundings, two good examples are the brick office buildings opposite the town hall, in Albert Square, they are neat and complement the victorian architecture which surrounds them and if more of this had been done I think the city would now truly be a very attractive place
Moving on to the recent building boom, I HATE glass boxes with a passion. They are just ugly and obtrusive and I actually think they are even worse than the concrete monstrosities of the early 60s. recent stuff, there are very few which I like, the only tones which I think are OK areThe Bridgewater Hall and the hotel near Piccadilly Station which was added onto the old Joshua Hoyle building
|
in response to mr angry,
architects have always used the materials that have been aviliable to them, from early historty, this has been plants and trees, mud bricks, stone the romans used concrete (but where not the first people to use it) clay brick, steel and now glass.
beauty is in the eye of the beholder but it is wrong to say that architects today do not now how to produce atractive buildings is wrong. styles and requirements have changed. buildings of the victorian era needed to have certain requirements, buildings of today need to fit our requirements. one of those requirements is a desire for open space and natural light, buildings made of glass allow one to connect with the outside.
the victorians loved glass, just look at the crystal palace and the great railway staions. if they could have made good quality glass as cheaply as we could today, they all would have been using it, look up Oriel Chambers in liverpool, built in 1864, it was one of the first steel framed buildings in britian and it caused a stir because of its large windows, something unusual at the time.
i am currently about half way through the 7 years of training that is needed to become an architect and i am a strong beliver that buildings should reflect the aspirations of the present, which is something that the civil justice centre does excedingly well.
i can see why it challenges opinion, but i find it shocking that you think that architects should design buildings to 'match' other buildings. at one time, brick was modern and cutting edge. if architects always matched there surrounings, we would still be living in buildings made of wattle an daub.
the brick buildings adjacent to the town hall are shocking, they are from an era when there was not much money to create somthing unique and they are boring, ugly, and have no charachter. they are from an era when the aspirations where so low, architects had to copy the past and 'play it safe' in order to get things built. i have it on good authority that there days are numbered, it will be interesting to see what replaces them.
not that there is anything wrong with brick, brick wan be used in new and inovative ways.
the civil justice centre is a marvelous building because it makes a statement about its use. its saying 'we dont need to be tucked away in a shady little cupboard to do justice', 'why do buildings need corners?' and 'we have the technology to do the unconventional, lets do it'. its very democratic.
the justice centre is not all show either, the feedback from its users, the public and the legal profession has been 100% positive. the leagal people who use it think that it makes there jobs easier and allows them to give a better service to their clients. the interiour is a marvel too, i suggest that you go inside one day and experience its catherdal like qualities for yourself.