[occy]

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"

[stevvy1986]

That's just 1 magazine, whether that magazine has any credibility or not I've no idea (ie does anyone in the industry pay any attention to what that magazine thinks are good/bad buildings). I doubt the BBC will care though, they're not there to make pretty buildings.

[mossy2103]

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)

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).

[DarthGore]

so, in summary.... it's NOT the BBC's property portfolio nor is it their responsibility for the design and appearance of the buildings??

I'm glad we sorted that out, now the OP can consider the thread closed

[technologist]

and as confirmed in FOI see http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/foi/class...nd_ordsall.pdf

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!

[grahamzxy]

Originally Posted by occy

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"

By the way it is Carbuncle Cup

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...0_%2801%29.jpg

http://www.wembley-central.co.uk/

[hendero]

Originally Posted by DarthGore

so, in summary.... it's NOT the BBC's property portfolio nor is it their responsibility for the design and appearance of the buildings??

I'm glad we sorted that out, now the OP can consider the thread closed

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.

[mossy2103]

Let's just forget that this "ugly building" has already been planned and designed, if not partially built by the time that the BBC decided to move there. Whether or not the BBC went there would not have changed the design of this building one iota (it would have looked exactly the same), so please stop attempting to make this out to be a BBC issue. It quite plainly is not.

[stevvy1986]

Quite frankly whether it's ugly looking or not is absolutely irrelevant. No matter how pretty or ugly the building is, it isn't going to affect the quality of programmes. You can have the ugliest building in the world, but if 10 of the best shows in history are produced there, nobody cares how ugly it is, just like you can have the prettiest building in the world, but if you produce 10 of the worst shows in history, nobody cares how pretty it is.

[zz9]

Originally Posted by hendero

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.

[hendero]

Originally Posted by zz9

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.

[zz9]

Originally Posted by hendero

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".....

[emails]

Originally Posted by occy

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"

well one thing its not is TELEVISION CENTRE

[hendero]

Originally Posted by zz9

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 black was an afterthought. The fountain was never used. The only thing that made it special or even noticeable was the BBC.

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.

Originally Posted by zz9

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.

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.

[mossy2103]

Originally Posted by hendero

They could have said they wouldn't move there unless a better design was chosen.

Of course, that would have done the trick.

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.

[hendero]

Originally Posted by mossy2103

Of course, that would have done the trick.

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.

[Charnham]

cant be worse than Peterboroughs PFI hospital, the roof has leaked, a chemical pipe has leaked, the floor has cracked due to being exposed to the sun, the phone system sent calls to a local mechanics, and its totally blow the budget for the local NHS trust, we will be lucky to keep it staffed the way things are going.

http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/n..._sun_1_2937847

God knows what will happen after the 12-month defect period.

[zz9]

Originally Posted by Charnham

cant be worse than Peterboroughs PFI hospital, the roof has leaked, a chemical pipe has leaked, the floor has cracked due to being exposed to the sun, the phone system sent calls to a local mechanics, and its totally blow the budget for the local NHS trust, we will be lucky to keep it staffed the way things are going.

http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/n..._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....."

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.

[Charnham]

yes I just dont see how its better in the long term not to own the building out right.

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.

[Glowbot]

I think the quality of a building can influence the output of it's users, that's what I have been told. Is this it? http://www.inviron.org/news/helping-...to-manchester/
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?

[zz9]

Originally Posted by Charnham

yes I just dont see how its better in the long term not to own the building out right.

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.

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.....

[Charnham]

Originally Posted by zz9

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.....

so they didnt sign a longer term deal for the Salford site?

[mossy2103]

Originally Posted by hendero

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.

That may well be true (of your subsequent posts) but that was not what was coming across from the specific post that I quoted.

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/bui...ve_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

[Charnham]

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.

[hendero]

Originally Posted by mossy2103

That may well be true (of your subsequent posts) but that was not what was coming across from the specific post that I quoted.

It was actually, it was two sentences later in the post you cited, you just chose not to quote it.

Originally Posted by mossy2103

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.

More appealling so it wasn't nominated to win an award for ugliest new building in the country.

Originally Posted by mossy2103

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

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.