BBC Salford's Media City - Worst Buildings
occy
Posts: 65,013
Forum Member
✭✭
BBC news £1 Billion Building in Salford's Media City has been nominated a Carbuncie Cup run by architecture magazine building designs. The magazine calls it an Eyesore Other nominations include - " The Museum of Liverpool and Londons Central Square Shopping Centre"
0
Comments
http://www.mediacityuk.co.uk/about-us/the-owners
Apart from which, the BBC (and ITV) needed office & studio space, and having bespoke premises costs money (and still gives people reason to complain, as with Broadcasting House).
I'm glad we sorted that out, now the OP can consider the thread closed
the BBC does NOT own PQ or BH they are owned by financial vehicles on leaseback - an obviously Mailbox and other offices in multi occupancy buildings are rented.
Manchester Oxford Road has been sold as has Woodlands in W12 - and it is demolished!
By the way it is Carbuncle Cup
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Museum_of_Liverpool_04-01-2010_%2801%29.jpg
http://www.wembley-central.co.uk/
The BBC did choose to move there and appeared to know what the design of the building would look like when they made the decision. But hey ho, it's only £1 billion of public funds on an ugly building which will house our national broadcaster for the next 20 years or so.
And if they'd asked for a redesign then the complaint would be "wasting money on luxury offices", the very complaint some people are making with Broadcasting House.
They could have said they wouldn't move there unless a better design was chosen.
Given the cost and it's the national broadcaster whose home is pretty important, it would have been preferable to have an iconic looking building. It's not an "anti-BBC" comment, especially seeing how precious some people seem to get over a TV company, just an "I wish our money would have been spent on something a bit more attractive" comment.
I can't really see any architectural merit in Television Centre. It is a fairly plain 1950s building. It's round. That's it. Functionally it was very well designed for TV production but I assume Media City is as well. But if TVC wasn't the BBC and was just an office building it could be knocked down and no one would have given it a second thought. The tower block was an afterthought. The fountain was never used. The only thing that made it special or even noticeable was the BBC.
I'm no big fan of Media City. I think the BBC should have started with a greenfield site and built their own building freehold rather than pay rent for ever to a developer. Unless they got a fantastic deal from Peel it will cost them more in the long run. But accountants love leasing because "it reduces capital outlay", never mind that it actually costs more in the long run. It looks good on the books right now and that's all they care about.
Edit: Changed "tower black" to "tower block".....:o
well one thing its not is TELEVISION CENTRE
I can't either. A lot of buildings dating from the 1950's are hideous. Maybe it was a hangover from the war, lack of resources, etc. But you're right, the fact that it housed the BBC seemed to make it more beloved than it would have been if it had been just the HQ of a large run-of-the-mill company.
Agreed. The home of the BBC is important, the costs will be significant, and it would be preferable if it is was a building the staff and everyone feels proud of. It would be interesting to hear what people who actually work there think of it.
And maybe pigs would have sprouted wings.
Ir maybe it's just you trying to pin blame on the BBC where no blame exists - because that's how these things go isn't it.
If you were to read my subsequent posts you'd see I'm specifically not blaming the BBC, just wishing all that money had been spent housing them in a more appealing building.
http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/health/health-news/peterborough_city_hospital_new_flooring_needed_because_of_the_sun_1_2937847
God knows what will happen after the 12-month defect period.
PFI is the worst thing to have ever happened to public projects. It is the state version of someone buying stuff on a store credit card or from somewhere like Bright House "because it's only £15 a month".
Of course man will have terraformed Mars before you finish paying for it.
In years to come when the bills come in we'll realise how screwed we are. There was even once case, a hospital I believe, where the CEO hels a press confrence to announce the wonderful new building and the great PFI deal to fund it when a reporter asked "when the twenty years is up who will the hospital belong to, the health trust or the PFI supplier?"
The CEO said "Er, I'm not actually sure about that....." :eek:
The BBC today should get a large sum of money selling off TVC. Had they built TVC with PFI they'd be walking away with nothing after having paid rent for fifty years.
I am not sure who will own City Hospital or even the Salford site, I hope the NHS trust and the BBC, but im not sure. I fear you are going to tell me that isnt the case.
It doesn't seem that bad to me. Media is pretty brash and hideous corporate monstrosity anyway, job done.
The nature of the building reflecting it's use and occupants is what makes it good or bad, not whether it's pretty or not. For that reason the old Television Center was fine, as it was outdated and grubby and a massive institutional slightly soviet looking block.
Could it just be the BBC londoners complaining in about moving up north?
AFAIK the BBC simply rent space in Media City.
I suppose it means that in a couple of years they can come to their senses and move back to London.....
As for a more appealing building - appealing to whom exactly? The developers approved the design, so they must have liked it. The architects created the design, so it is safe to assume that they liked it. It received planning permission from the Local Authority, so it broke no planning regulations.
As the saying goes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and one report from one group does not mean that it is an eyesore, nor does it mean that others do not like it. And as such, this is a typical storm in a teacup which is being used to have another go at the BBC. Indeed, I am not even sure how much input the BBC had with this development in the first place, given that it was
developed by a consortium comprising the Northwest Regional Development Agency, Peel Holdings, Salford City Council and the Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company, is the UK's first purpose-built media city and will cover 200 acres of former dockland at Salford Quays.
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/buildings/new_dev/move_north.shtml)
Perhaps any blame should be attached to he Northwest Regional Development Agency, Peel Holdings, Salford City Council and the Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company
Too critise the BBC for the building not be some super dooper design that looks like its been built by an oil rich gulf coast nation, seems like madness to me, when you can be damm sure that if they had spent alot of money tarting it up the same people would critise them for that.
It was actually, it was two sentences later in the post you cited, you just chose not to quote it.
More appealling so it wasn't nominated to win an award for ugliest new building in the country.
Is anyone having a go at the BBC? I can't speak for the OP, all that post does is mention the BBC's new HQ has been nominated for a Carbuncle award. And the better part of £1 billion of public money is being spent to move the BBC to what a leading architectural magazine deems one of the ugliest new buildings in the UK.
I assume they signed a long lease. They may have a get out clause but I really don't expect them to be going anywhere anytime soon.