Odeon RIP....

Moderators: John, Sharon, Fossil, Lucky Poet, crusty_bint, Jazza, dazza

Re: Horrible!

Postby cheesemonster » Fri May 11, 2007 11:31 am

scallopboy wrote:thatched cottages?

aye, you'd love that though mr scalllopbothy ;)
"It's hard to believe people think a real cow dying on film doesn't look like a real cow dying on film"

http://flickr.com/photos/dreamlogic
User avatar
cheesemonster
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 10:58 pm
Location: Eastend of Glasgow

Re: Horrible!

Postby scallopboy » Fri May 11, 2007 11:32 am

cheesemonster wrote:
scallopboy wrote:thatched cottages?

aye, you'd love that though mr scalllopbothy ;)


Ah the burnin' of the wid ::):
User avatar
scallopboy
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 5:34 pm
Location: Strathbungo

Postby cheesemonster » Fri May 11, 2007 11:35 am

i agree about what's already been said by many, architecture is a well paid job! surely they can come with something more fitting, i could do a better job myself!
Last edited by cheesemonster on Fri May 11, 2007 11:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
"It's hard to believe people think a real cow dying on film doesn't look like a real cow dying on film"

http://flickr.com/photos/dreamlogic
User avatar
cheesemonster
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 10:58 pm
Location: Eastend of Glasgow

Re: Horrible!

Postby Bingo Bango » Fri May 11, 2007 11:35 am

scallopboy wrote:
Bingo Bango wrote:whats so important about being in keeping? if that mentality was always followed, we would still all be living and working in delightful little thatched cottages or something....


Who said anything about building thatched cottages? By "in keeping" I mean something that compliments the surrounding buildings. I don't want to see it replaced by something in fake sandstone facade either. The retained building frontage is Art Deco; would it have taken so much effort to design the rest of the building with this in mind as opposed to having an off the shelf steel and glass building that could be in New York, Tokyo or Sydney? Cheap and nasty design is cheap and nasty design regardless of the era or location it's built.


i only meant that if things were always to be in keeping, we would not be developing styles that reflect our own time (for better or worse). those who built the victorian city didnt really stay in keeping with what was there before for example.

We dont live in an art deco time so why design as though we do? just as those designers who did work in the art deco style didnt design in the classical style of the past, yet still managed buildings which at the time were most likely shocking (to the masses) but today are well regarded..

why cant glass compliment the surrounding buildings?
Bingo Bango
Second Stripe
Second Stripe
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 10:36 am
Location: Glasgow

Re: Horrible!

Postby scallopboy » Fri May 11, 2007 11:37 am

Bingo Bango wrote:why cant glass compliment the surrounding buildings?


It can. But a bland building with little thought will always be a bland building.
User avatar
scallopboy
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 5:34 pm
Location: Strathbungo

Postby Vladimir » Fri May 11, 2007 11:37 am

We dont live in an art deco time


No, we live in the bland-glass-box time. I personally prefer art deco... :?
User avatar
Vladimir
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1830
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:40 am
Location: Confédération Générale du Travail

Postby Bingo Bango » Fri May 11, 2007 11:40 am

cheesemonster wrote:i agree about what's already been said by many, architecture is a well paid job! surely they can come with something more fitting, i could do a better job myself!


please do

and whats this bollocks reasoning that because architecture is a well paid job (done a wage survey recently have you?) 'better' scheme designs that suit your personla aesthetic view should be produced?
Bingo Bango
Second Stripe
Second Stripe
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 10:36 am
Location: Glasgow

Postby scallopboy » Fri May 11, 2007 11:41 am

Vladimir wrote:
We dont live in an art deco time


No, we live in the bland-glass-box time. I personally prefer art deco... :?


More of an arts and crafts organic-type myself (aspiring hippy). But I do like good quality buildings from any era, even the bland glass box epoch we are now enduring. Would some deco detailing have been too much to ask for?
User avatar
scallopboy
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 5:34 pm
Location: Strathbungo

Postby cheesemonster » Fri May 11, 2007 11:56 am

you seem to be defending this quite passionately - your profile says you are an architect - did you design the bloody thing!?

Bingo Bango wrote:please do

i could tell that was coming - i'm a former multimedia design student, i've got my higher in graphic communication, my current job title is Graphic assistant, i'm not going to get the drawing board out for this, but yes if i sat down and spent the time on it then yes i genuinelly think i could do better

Bingo Bango wrote:whats this bollocks reasoning that because architecture is a well paid job

well isn't it? i'm sure that whoever designed it is earning a lot more than the £5.95 i'm on at the moment or are you going to tell me that whoever designed it is on minimum wage?

Bingo Bango wrote:'better' scheme designs that suit your personla aesthetic view should be produced?

no not my personal aesthetic, but to fit in with the surroundings,
shouldn't this be a requirement of good architecture or should any building regardless of how it looks be allowed to go up?
presumably you think that it would be perfectly ok to put up the same glass fronted building next to the necropolis?
"It's hard to believe people think a real cow dying on film doesn't look like a real cow dying on film"

http://flickr.com/photos/dreamlogic
User avatar
cheesemonster
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 10:58 pm
Location: Eastend of Glasgow

Postby Bingo Bango » Fri May 11, 2007 12:26 pm

cheesemonster wrote:you seem to be defending this quite passionately - your profile says you are an architect - did you design the bloody thing!?

Bingo Bango wrote:please do

i could tell that was coming - i'm a former multimedia design student, i've got my higher in graphic communication, my current job title is Graphic assistant, i'm not going to get the drawing board out for this, but yes if i sat down and spent the time on it then yes i genuinelly think i could do better

Bingo Bango wrote:whats this bollocks reasoning that because architecture is a well paid job

well isn't it? i'm sure that whoever designed it is earning a lot more than the £5.95 i'm on at the moment or are you going to tell me that whoever designed it is on minimum wage?

Bingo Bango wrote:'better' scheme designs that suit your personla aesthetic view should be produced?

no not my personal aesthetic, but to fit in with the surroundings,
shouldn't this be a requirement of good architecture or should any building regardless of how it looks be allowed to go up?
presumably you think that it would be perfectly ok to put up the same glass fronted building next to the necropolis?


you could produce a better image of a building no doubt. whether you could design a building that functions on a use/economic/environmental level is another matter altogether.

check and see what the sort of pay is for an architect in scotland currently. apart from that, wages should have nothing to do with it - pay someone a million pounds to design a building and you arent necessarily going to get a better result than some getting paid 18,000

Where is it said, or where do you come up with the idea that all architecture must fit in with its surroundings? the surroundings are all architecture designs too arent they, but not all exactly alike in style and or construction?

i dont think putting this building next to the necropolis would be perfectly ok - the necropolis isnt in the middle of a vibrant and densely populated urban centre though is it?
Bingo Bango
Second Stripe
Second Stripe
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 10:36 am
Location: Glasgow

Re: Horrible!

Postby Ally Doll » Fri May 11, 2007 12:44 pm

scallopboy wrote:
dougie79 wrote:Everything seems to be glass, glass and more glass, why cant buildings be nice anymore?


Because "nice" doesn't win awards or massage the ego of the architect. It's so much easier and cheaper to fling up something in steel and glass and call it an "icon" building retaining original features than design and build something in keeping with the surroundings.


I wouldn't mind so much if it was at least a bit sympathetic to the cinema building, but it's not. I think people are right to say "it's just another glass box", because it is - it's not very original and looks like many others being thrown up in the IFSD. It's hugely out of proportion (there's not much room or natural light in that part of the city as it is, I feel) and jars with the style of the cinema.

Styles and fashions change and architects probably shouldn't try to build something "mock deco" to fit in, but architects should at least look for something that will enhance and compliment the original.
User avatar
Ally Doll
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1421
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 1:18 pm
Location: Dennistoun

Postby Ally Doll » Fri May 11, 2007 12:46 pm

Vladimir wrote:
We dont live in an art deco time


No, we live in the bland-glass-box time. I personally prefer art deco... :?


Nah, Art Nouveau's where it's at. I visited Victor Horta's home in Brussels, twas lush. 8)
User avatar
Ally Doll
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1421
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 1:18 pm
Location: Dennistoun

Postby cheesemonster » Fri May 11, 2007 1:37 pm

Bingo Bango wrote:check and see what the sort of pay is for an architect in scotland currently.

from having a look at s1jobs it looks like £25,000 - £46,000 (and often with a car, pension and bonues)

do you dispute these figures or are the majority at the 25,000 end?


Bingo Bango wrote:Where is it said, or where do you come up with the idea that all architecture must fit in with its surroundings?

I didn't say "all" at all! When designing new buildings for an existing city centre like glasgow's, i'd have thought this would have been a clear goal of any decent architect.


Bingo Bango wrote:i dont think putting this building next to the necropolis would be perfectly ok - the necropolis isnt in the middle of a vibrant and densely populated urban centre though is it?

so as long as its a densely populated urban centre anything goes? may as well have a spurting cock afterall! ::):
"It's hard to believe people think a real cow dying on film doesn't look like a real cow dying on film"

http://flickr.com/photos/dreamlogic
User avatar
cheesemonster
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 10:58 pm
Location: Eastend of Glasgow

Postby Bingo Bango » Fri May 11, 2007 2:03 pm

Bingo Bango wrote:Where is it said, or where do you come up with the idea that all architecture must fit in with its surroundings?

I didn't say "all" at all! When designing new buildings for an existing city centre like glasgow's, i'd have thought this would have been a clear goal of any decent architect.
[/quote]

yeah, but thats just my point - WHY is it to be a clear goal? why is it so clear cut?
Bingo Bango
Second Stripe
Second Stripe
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 10:36 am
Location: Glasgow

Postby My Kitten » Fri May 11, 2007 2:08 pm

I'd just like architects to think of people who are using the environment when they are designing buildings/streetscapes etc and not just the design.

It does seem rather imposing for the area and really doesn't do anything for the original structure either which is sad. Some glass structures can be good, but too often they are not which makes us all :(
User avatar
My Kitten
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 6105
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 10:10 am

PreviousNext

Return to Glasgow Chat (Coffee Lounge)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests