More appealling so it wasn't nominated to win an award for ugliest new building in the country.
but would a better looking building make the programs better, and if it does, could the extra cost of a better looking building, be shown on a spreadsheet.
That said the Pixar folk have nice digs, and make good movies, so maybe there is a connection.
It was actually, it was two sentences later in the post you cited, you just chose not to quote it.[/quote}I chose not to quote it because you started the post with one single statement, out on its own. That is the single statement that I took issue with.
More appealling so it wasn't nominated to win an award for ugliest new building in the country.
By one small group. Hardly a condemnation considering that Prince Charles has often called other modern buildings carbuncles.
Is anyone having a go at the BBC?
It looked like you were dfor starters, even if it was later tempered by some soothing words.
I can't speak for the OP
Neither can I, a pity that the OP saw fit to simply post the information (which is nearly a month old if you google it) and pass no opinion, and not return to the thread that he/she started.
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 is being spent to move the BBC to what a leading architectural magazine deems one of the ugliest new buildings in the UK.
Beauty & beholder, regardless as to how august these architects are or see themselves to be.
On a personal basis, I think that Media City looks fine - modern, even futuristic in parts. But then again I thought that most Turner Prize nominations are laughable or just a mess (as with Tracey Emin's bedroom), and some lauded architectural icons are just ugly, so what do I know.
leaving aside PFI and Peterborough City Hospital, it does seem odd that people moan that the building is "ugly" after all its the work that is done on the inside that is important "pays the bills" if you will.
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.
Aye it's pretty silly to complain about the looks of what is, at heart a fairly utilitarian building.
It's not an Art Studio, or a vacation resort, it's effectively an office block with specialist requirements, it wouldn't surprise me if the design was based mainly on practical reasons and keeping costs down..
Function over Form, I've no doubt it could have been made prettier, but at what cost both in monetary terms, and cost/space.
Some of the "prettiest" buildings have been the worst for actual suitability for their intended tasks.
As for the BBC spending money prettying it up, you're right, some people would moan and scream and shout about the BBC wasting money extorted from single parent pensioners if they'd spent money making it look better (rather like they did when the BBC had to spend some money on making TVC look a little better as part of a planning application for necessary repairs/uipdates).
The BBC cannot win no matter what they do for some people.
I chose not to quote it because you started the post with one single statement, out on its own. That is the single statement that I took issue with.
Sounds like one of those movie posters where they snip words from a review to give it a different meaning than the overall context of what was written. But if that works for you.....
By one small group. Hardly a condemnation considering that Prince Charles has often called other modern buildings carbuncles.
It seems to be a fairly well-respected magazine, their "awards" have been around a few years. I haven't read too many reviews about how beautiful it is.
Neither can I, a pity that the OP saw fit to simply post the information (which is nearly a month old if you google it) and pass no opinion, and not return to the thread that he/she started.
But then again I thought that most Turner Prize nominations are laughable or just a mess (as with Tracey Emin's bedroom), and some lauded architectural icons are just ugly, so what do I know.
Sounds like one of those movie posters where they snip words from a review to give it a different meaning than the overall context of what was written. But if that works for you.....
Not really, perhaps my post above should have stated "line" rather than "post". I apologise for that mistake.
It seems to be a fairly well-respected magazine, their "awards" have been around a few years. I haven't read too many reviews about how beautiful it is.
It just goes to show that the world of (contemporary) art & design is rather subjective at the best of times. And if all architects had the same ideas as to what was pleasing or functional, not only would we live in a more boring world, but plenty of architects would be out of a job.
That's a no-no on these forums, huh?
Well, I always thought that this was a discussion forum rather than a news site (even though news stories have a place on DS away from the forums). So yes, it would appear to be a bit of a no-no in my view, to use your words (not that my view carries weight with the DS mods though)
I certainly agree with that sentiment.
Yep, there have been plenty of what I would call "stinkers" over the years.
On a side note, I always thought that the Lloyds of London building was a monstrosity, resembling an oil refinery.
That was until I watched Climbing Great Buildings and saw how thoughtfully it had been designed (and why all of the ducting was on the outside), so that it was functional as well as offering space, light and air, with plenty of opportunity for expansion.
That was until I watched Climbing Great Buildings and saw how thoughtfully it had been designed, so that it was functional as well as offering space, light and air, with plenty of opportunity for expansion.
Aye, some of the designs that look "the worst" take on a completely different life when you realise the reasons for the design choices.
They may not ever look beautiful in the sense that a lot buildings made with a high emphasis on purely aesthetic values can, but there is a certain beauty in practical designs if you know how/why they might have gone with it, and can see how they've made features out of what are effectively practical requirements.
It's like a lot of old architecture, I doubt anyone in the 11th and 12th centuries would have called many of the castles that were built "pretty" , they were built purely for practical reasons (strength, defences, the ability to intimidate would be attackers into having second thoughts), nor would many people have called a lot of the old stone bridges "pretty".
However hundreds of years later a lot of the remaining examples are often referred to as "wonderful", or "picturesque", if not "beautiful".
Beauty is very definitely in the eye of the beholder, if you're an engineer you might wax lyrical about the beauty of a particular design and how it's overcome practical limitations, if you're an architect you might consider a particular mix of materials and styles beautiful, if you're a layman you might consider just the way it looks and blends into the background/surroundings, and if you're someone who has to work in/on a structure you might consider the things that make it practical/your job easier wonderful touches...("it's got a beautiful design, we can get to/do X so easily").
It's like a lot of hardware, many people seem to think Apple products are the height of design - people that have to repair them often think otherwise ("why the hell can't Apple use a standard hard drive interface*").
I consider a particular PC case as the height of practical design, but it looked butt ugly (it had features that were well ahead of it's time, such slide rails for the drives, thumbscrew access, removable motherboard tray, an optional support bar for expansion cards**), and solidly built, it was a beautiful design for it's time and price (2000, and £80), and I'd still be using it today if it had better cooling (if they released a modern version with 120mm fans and some noise damping, I'd buy it in an instant). It was a beautiful case to work with, and the designers had obviously put a fair bit of thought into the requirements.
Many of the modern "pretty" cases that look good externally don't touch it in practical considerations, as they compromise far too much in function for the form.
*They have started reintroducing non standard interfaces for the drives (sure you can still use a standard drive, but it screws up the cooling due to a fan on recent models running via a controller on the Apple drive), or things like changing a battery on an Ipod etc.
**Something I've only ever seen in a handful of cases, and is desperately needed with many of the modern videocard designs (huge hulking heatsinks!), if you ever move the PC.
Aren't the buildings leased from a third party though? And I guess that third party employed the architects that designed the buildings (so it is they who should shoulder the blame, if any). Of course, what is a monstrosity to one person is beauty to someone else (it is entirely subjective)
Comments
That said the Pixar folk have nice digs, and make good movies, so maybe there is a connection.
Aye it's pretty silly to complain about the looks of what is, at heart a fairly utilitarian building.
It's not an Art Studio, or a vacation resort, it's effectively an office block with specialist requirements, it wouldn't surprise me if the design was based mainly on practical reasons and keeping costs down..
Function over Form, I've no doubt it could have been made prettier, but at what cost both in monetary terms, and cost/space.
Some of the "prettiest" buildings have been the worst for actual suitability for their intended tasks.
As for the BBC spending money prettying it up, you're right, some people would moan and scream and shout about the BBC wasting money extorted from single parent pensioners if they'd spent money making it look better (rather like they did when the BBC had to spend some money on making TVC look a little better as part of a planning application for necessary repairs/uipdates).
The BBC cannot win no matter what they do for some people.
Sounds like one of those movie posters where they snip words from a review to give it a different meaning than the overall context of what was written. But if that works for you.....
It seems to be a fairly well-respected magazine, their "awards" have been around a few years. I haven't read too many reviews about how beautiful it is.
That's a no-no on these forums, huh?
I certainly agree with that sentiment.
The Turner Prize is also well-respected.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2011/may/04/turner-prize-shortlist-2011-announced
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2010/may/04/turner-prize-shortlist-2010
It just goes to show that the world of (contemporary) art & design is rather subjective at the best of times. And if all architects had the same ideas as to what was pleasing or functional, not only would we live in a more boring world, but plenty of architects would be out of a job.
Well, I always thought that this was a discussion forum rather than a news site (even though news stories have a place on DS away from the forums). So yes, it would appear to be a bit of a no-no in my view, to use your words (not that my view carries weight with the DS mods though)
Yep, there have been plenty of what I would call "stinkers" over the years.
On a side note, I always thought that the Lloyds of London building was a monstrosity, resembling an oil refinery.
http://www.lloyds.com/Lloyds/About-Lloyds/Explore-Lloyds/The-Lloyds-Building/Images-of-the-Lloyds-building/Exterior-images
That was until I watched Climbing Great Buildings and saw how thoughtfully it had been designed (and why all of the ducting was on the outside), so that it was functional as well as offering space, light and air, with plenty of opportunity for expansion.
Thats true.
It's not falling to bits for a start.:D
If you want to see an ugggggly broadcasting building, look no further than:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sky+harlequin+1&hl=en&rlz=1R2RNTN_enGB381&prmd=ivns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=byM8TtnhOIO1hAecmdj7AQ&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CA4Q_AUoAQ&biw=1681&bih=861
Aye, some of the designs that look "the worst" take on a completely different life when you realise the reasons for the design choices.
They may not ever look beautiful in the sense that a lot buildings made with a high emphasis on purely aesthetic values can, but there is a certain beauty in practical designs if you know how/why they might have gone with it, and can see how they've made features out of what are effectively practical requirements.
It's like a lot of old architecture, I doubt anyone in the 11th and 12th centuries would have called many of the castles that were built "pretty" , they were built purely for practical reasons (strength, defences, the ability to intimidate would be attackers into having second thoughts), nor would many people have called a lot of the old stone bridges "pretty".
However hundreds of years later a lot of the remaining examples are often referred to as "wonderful", or "picturesque", if not "beautiful".
Beauty is very definitely in the eye of the beholder, if you're an engineer you might wax lyrical about the beauty of a particular design and how it's overcome practical limitations, if you're an architect you might consider a particular mix of materials and styles beautiful, if you're a layman you might consider just the way it looks and blends into the background/surroundings, and if you're someone who has to work in/on a structure you might consider the things that make it practical/your job easier wonderful touches...("it's got a beautiful design, we can get to/do X so easily").
It's like a lot of hardware, many people seem to think Apple products are the height of design - people that have to repair them often think otherwise ("why the hell can't Apple use a standard hard drive interface*").
I consider a particular PC case as the height of practical design, but it looked butt ugly (it had features that were well ahead of it's time, such slide rails for the drives, thumbscrew access, removable motherboard tray, an optional support bar for expansion cards**), and solidly built, it was a beautiful design for it's time and price (2000, and £80), and I'd still be using it today if it had better cooling (if they released a modern version with 120mm fans and some noise damping, I'd buy it in an instant). It was a beautiful case to work with, and the designers had obviously put a fair bit of thought into the requirements.
Many of the modern "pretty" cases that look good externally don't touch it in practical considerations, as they compromise far too much in function for the form.
*They have started reintroducing non standard interfaces for the drives (sure you can still use a standard drive, but it screws up the cooling due to a fan on recent models running via a controller on the Apple drive), or things like changing a battery on an Ipod etc.
**Something I've only ever seen in a handful of cases, and is desperately needed with many of the modern videocard designs (huge hulking heatsinks!), if you ever move the PC.