scallopboy wrote:thatched cottages?
aye, you'd love that though mr scalllopbothy
Moderators: John, Sharon, Fossil, Lucky Poet, crusty_bint, Jazza, dazza
scallopboy wrote:thatched cottages?
cheesemonster wrote:scallopboy wrote:thatched cottages?
aye, you'd love that though mr scalllopbothy
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.
Bingo Bango wrote:why cant glass compliment the surrounding buildings?
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!
Vladimir wrote:We dont live in an art deco time
No, we live in the bland-glass-box time. I personally prefer art deco...
Bingo Bango wrote:please do
Bingo Bango wrote:whats this bollocks reasoning that because architecture is a well paid job
Bingo Bango wrote:'better' scheme designs that suit your personla aesthetic view should be produced?
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 betterBingo 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?
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.
Bingo Bango wrote:check and see what the sort of pay is for an architect in scotland currently.
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?
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?
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?
Return to Glasgow Chat (Coffee Lounge)
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 guests