ForumGarden

There's a fun article in today's New York Times.

The first of the seven buildings discussed, the Tour Montparnasse, is just plain vile and dreadfully situated.

The Orange County Government Center in Goshen, N.Y reminds me of Churchill College, it's likeable but I do hope whoever put that Aircon unit outside the ground floor got fired. Aircon should always always be invisible and inaudible.

The Empire State Plaza in Albany is magnificent, how can anyone not like that.

If the Neapolitans don't want the Vele di Scampia it could go perfectly well in Grimsby. It's beautiful. I'd live there.

Berlin’s Tempelhof, the BT tower and the Pompidou Centre are plain disgusting on every possible level. Knocking them down would be the cultural equivalent of demolishing the Berlin Wall. Had the Pompidou Centre been built underground and the ground-level roof landscaped as a park I'd be happier with the architects and the ghastly Yahoos who commissioned them and paid for the construction.

I agree, pretty much all you say. I'm certainly not averse to modern architecture but the Victorians knew how to puff their vulgar chest. Architecture has to make a bold statement and help make the environment its placed, show off and say look at me, I'm special. Gaudi knew more than most and Barcelona is graced with some of the most beautiful buildings in the world

My favourite buildings in London are the Natural History Museum, Holborn Bars - an example of how brickwork need not be boring, and pretty much every church and cathedral

The tragedy is, there is a tendency, certainly in the big cities, to design commercial buildings to last about 50 years or so. They are then demolished to make way for the next throw away structure. I'm wondering what our legacy will be when future generations look back, as we do today and stand in wonder at the foot of great buildings. I doubt the Shard will still be there in a 100 years time, certainly not the Lloyds building. Bold, fanciful, meaningful structures like Canterbury Cathedral will stand for as long as the stone itself will last. I don't see any modern structures having the same impact.

Snowfire;1480316 wrote: My favourite buildings in London are the Natural History Museum, Holborn Bars - an example of how brickwork need not be boring, and pretty much every church and cathedral
I remember the Natural History Museum being cleaned, it was jet black before then with all the accumulated soot. People stared after the cleaning, it was beyond belief - everyone thought the Victorians had built it black.

I had no idea the other was called Holborn Bars, I've always called it the Prudential. I assume it was built for the Pru originally. I just looked on Wikipedia... did you know the two buildings were designed by the same chap or is that just coincidence?

No, I didnt know. He's got form, that bloke.

I forgot about St Pancras Station.

And to think they considered pulling it down in the 60's

A few are of value simply for the historical perspective. The Orange County Center and the Empire State Plaza fall into that category, along with Templehof. I do think that the City of Goshen should invite some painters from the Caribbean to have a go at that building. It could use a little color.

Even that abomination in Naples has some historical significance, and has become a flagship for failures in Urban planning.

LarsMac;1480328 wrote: Even that abomination in Naples has some historical significance, and has become a flagship for failures in Urban planning.
It's just in the wrong neighborhood. Put it in a domestic estate like that and it's a social failure. Put it on a university campus as a hall of residence and it would be amazing.

This is the first thing the Cruise Liner Passengers get to see when they come off the ships into Southampton. Despite the favours that the camera filters do to it, it is an eyesore, and an utter disgrace to the City. However, because of its Georgian (?) architecture it's considered a listed building & nothing can be done to redesign it.

Southampton Terminus

FourPart;1480331 wrote: This is the first thing the Cruise Liner Passengers get to see when they come off the ships into Southampton. Despite the favours that the camera filters do to it, it is an eyesore, and an utter disgrace to the City. However, because of its Georgian (?) architecture it's considered a listed building & nothing can be done to redesign it.

Southampton Terminus


I like it. I am sure that it is far more appealing than whatever modern marvel they might come up with to replace it.

Seriously, it is a blot on the landscape. The whitewash is peeling. Lichen is growing on it. Pigeon crap all down the sides. You don't see all that in the photos. Believe it or not, that used to be the Cunard main offices.

There's a multitude of fantastic architectural designs in Southampton that could easily improve it.

https://www.google.com/search?q=buildin ... B590%3B333

Nothing a good cleaning and a paint job couldn't fix.

LarsMac;1480353 wrote: Nothing a good cleaning and a paint job couldn't fix.


I'm a bit like that.

Not to mention shed loads of polyfilla.

If that's a sideswipe at my wrinkles, I'm considering tucks and a bit out from under each eye.

FourPart;1480331 wrote: because of its Georgian (?) architecture


1872!

It was an add on to Lars' remark actually.

Some years ago it underwent a full sandblasting & a new paint job. Another year on & it was looking just as bad as it did in the first place.

I spent some time today enjoying a little sunshine, watching the world go past, outside this magnificent building. St Pancras St and Hotel

It has impact. It's impressive.

A huge amount of passers by felt a strong urge to photograph or be photographed in front of this statement of Victorian splendour. It's as impressive on the inside as you'd imagine

Unfortunately, they dont build them like they used to.

Attached files

I guess it's a matter of taste. Personally I've found that if something is efficient, it takes on its own beauty. I don't just mean that from an idealist point of view, but I find that if something looks good, it also tends to be efficient at what it's designed for. The same applies to nature, from the massive, yet so delicate form of the elephant to the amazing form of a slug. Seriously, have you ever studied a slug (or a snail) close up. See the rippling of its muscular foot, as it moves along. It's amazing. Then there's the telescopic eyes. All contained within one seemingly simple piece of rubbery goo.

That's the whole point of high Victorian architecture. Being efficient was the least important factor in its design. It was showing off and preening for it's own sake. It had no limits. It was loud, vulgar and brassy.

It was a chameleon rather than a slug.

I am at the moment constructing an ornate, radiating arched doorway in French Limestone, replicating the originals around the building. It's why I identify so much with Gothic design in particular and am bored with the soulless, sometimes brutal flatness of modern buildings.

So you are right, it is about taste. I clearly have an chisel rather than an axe to grind

Snowfire;1482902 wrote:

It was a chameleon rather than a slug.


Did you hear about the chameleon that couldn't change colour when it wanted to attract a mate?

It had a reptile dysfunction.

FourPart;1483127 wrote: Did you hear about the chameleon that couldn't change colour when it wanted to attract a mate?

It had a reptile dysfunction.


Brrrrrm tsh.

I, personally, cannot stand those modern straight up and down glass-covered structures. There is absolutely no design about them - just tall square boxes ! I do prefer the older buildings, but not the 60's concrete abortions. As Snowfire says, those wonderfully built cathedrals, and similar age buildings will still be as good as new when those sky-scraper type blocks are long gone !

Snowfire;1482902 wrote: ........

I am at the moment constructing an ornate, radiating arched doorway in French Limestone, replicating the originals around the building........


The progress of the arched doorway

Attached files

Snowfire;1483644 wrote: The progress of the arched doorway


They're very interesting photos, all of them. I like the box spacer. I'm really puzzled by the plumbing pipes. Was the entry bricked in like the arched space to the left and round the corner to the right? Was the wall faced, once - I assume it has to have been, to match the new carved limestone. Is the Y-shape dent on the inner surface to key into, or to let air or water move about?

spot;1483645 wrote: They're very interesting photos, all of them. I like the box spacer. I'm really puzzled by the plumbing pipes. Was the entry bricked in like the arched space to the left and round the corner to the right? Was the wall faced, once - I assume it has to have been, to match the new carved limestone. Is the Y-shape dent on the inner surface to key into, or to let air or water move about?


All good questions.

The pipes were for a cementacious grout. An attempt to consolidate the structure, commonly known as bungaroosh, a composite of aggregate, lime and flint, with a few bands of brickwork for stabilisation. Its a new opening through a very thick wall in a clock tower, about 150 years old. The new face to the wall either side of the arch will be a faced flint wall to match the existing. The "Y" shape on the side of the stone is for grouting the stones once they have all been installed. A simple matter of "buttering" a stone with mortar is inadequate in this case because of the soft, porous nature of the limestone. We pour a lime/stonedust grout in all joints then build on top to add strength - the more weight on top the stronger the arch.

This was a challenge because arches, naturally are built with a system of lowering all stones from above. This was an opening in an existing structure so the voussoirs (arch segments) had to be "posted" into an opening - with no damage whatsoever. A difficult task with such soft stone

Taking things from a musical perspective (as I usually do), it never ceases to amaze me how most of the older churches are so conducive to excellent acoustics - particularly for singing.

When I went to Christchurch Priory last week for the Libera concert, for instance, the resonant ringing could be heard clearly for 15 - 20 seconds after they'd finished singing.

On a few of their pieces, where there was a soloist, one of the boys would sneak out & up the stairs into the balcony (or whatever it's called) above the rest of them (you can see what I mean here - it's about the 8th picture down - Christchurch Priory). The effect was amazing - not only visually, but acoustically. Many of these buildings have been analysed with modern sonic equipment & have been found to be near perfect, even by modern hi-tech standards.

FourPart;1483684 wrote:

When I went to Christchurch Priory last week for the Libera concert, for instance, the resonant ringing could be heard clearly for 15 - 20 seconds after they'd finished singing.


Wasn't there a famous review of the opening of the Albert Hall saying the audience enjoyed hearing a performance of the 1812 Overture twice. Wikipedia only claims it used to be jokingly said that the Hall was "the only place where a British composer could be sure of hearing his work twice" which is a variation on the theme.

Royal Albert Hall avoids the joke and recounts the history.

Scaffold down. Flint installed and all looking a little tidier.

King and Queen are satisfied at least

Attached files

Snowfire, what impressive work! Breathtaking!