View Full Version : Dynamic Places Awards 2005
November 25th, 2005, 03:06 PM
I see that the Matrix apartments development on Cowcaddens Road was given a 'High Commendation' in the Scottish Enterprise Dynamic Places awards last night. Judges said:
" The judges said that the architecture of the building was outstanding. High quality landscaping and designing has lead to clever integration of the site with the local environment. The development provides a clear linkage between the North and South of Glasgow and through innovative use of urban design, the architects have managed to create an oasis of calm within the heart of a bustling city centre"
Well done guys, even if the visual finish is most certainly is not to my own untutored taste :)
At another and equally important scale and context, Linn Park playground and gardens for children was given a commendation... why is it we are so bad in Scotland at designing. providing and maintaining open amenity spaces and facilities; it can't jsut be our climate? So this type of success story is all the more commendable.
The Boy David
November 25th, 2005, 04:45 PM
It's a good'un, the Matrix. Let down by the rear elevation though:
Not so good...
Brilliant question about public spaces there Escotregen - Scotland really doesn't have any world class public places to speak of, and so many spaces that are just a downright disgrace.
I can't understand why this is the case - it's certainly not to do with a lack of home grown talent.
I mean, George's Square? Ugghhhh...
November 25th, 2005, 05:55 PM
It's somewhat love it or hate it, isn't it?
Vladimir V L
November 25th, 2005, 05:56 PM
I think its good, if you dont look at the orange side or the horrible wooden bits.
November 25th, 2005, 06:01 PM
I hate it...
November 25th, 2005, 08:59 PM
escotregen, you have had a busy week what with the Scottish Enterprise Dynamic Places Awards and the State of the City Economy Conference!
Are you related to the Matrix architect by any chance?I think we should be told.
November 26th, 2005, 01:17 AM
Could have been great! But it's piasch!
November 28th, 2005, 01:07 PM
Murdo, no, my CIA connections don't extend that far; mind you there was that intriguing film about the Matrix wasn't there :wink2:
Mind you your right that I'm busy.. back to the Radisson again this week :) . This time is the Arts and Creatives sector trying to maintain the momentum behind the Culture Review - us good guys have got to show willing and support them.
November 28th, 2005, 01:13 PM
matrix i feell is not too bad - all in.
tho the treatment of the back lane elevation and environment is shockingly bad - the architects, the developer and the council should all be very embarrassed about this part of the development.
November 28th, 2005, 01:17 PM
why is it that in all the creative arts reviews and opinion pieces, whether is what the arts community thinks about Scottish Devolution or the arts personality of the millenium awards or what books are Scottish Artists reading for Christmas .......... architects never feature.
Sick of looking at Sarah Heaney, Texas, Allister Gray, Edwin Morgan and that bloke who writes murder stories in Edinburgh, myself.
November 28th, 2005, 01:41 PM
i let someone else answer that one alan.
couldn't agree with yer sentiment more tho.
oh look, I'm answering it after all.....
architecture needs someone with opinion, style and weighty enough bollocks to engage with people outwith the profession, if it wants to head the guest list at the events you describe.
And said person would need to be able to let go of their obsessive disdain of public taste (a real problem within the profession) in order to be a hit.
I'm SURE we have such candidates.
whether or not they are willing to play the game, is another question.
November 28th, 2005, 01:49 PM
I thought it was that architecture is'nt really considered an art form........or we don't have anyone as nice looking in a little black cocktail dress as Sharleen or Sarah.
November 28th, 2005, 01:50 PM
Aland that's a good point. When I chaired a Forum last March in Stirling on sustainable communities I was pleased to enlist Raymond Young, chair of the new body 'Architecture and Design Scotland' as keynote speaker. The timely need for a promotion of the importance of architecture and design in urban landscapes (and regeneration in particular) in Scotland was one of the issues that arose. I'm kinda hopeful I can do something on this theme in the New Year.
For myself who now and then writes for journals, I have to admit that I would not feel confident in taking on a commission to do an article on architecture or an example of architecture.
This is because there just does not seem to be an accessible language in which people who are non-architects (and who are not stupid or ignorant because of that) can write in, with regard to bringing architectural or design meanings and forms to wider, lay, audiences.
When (once!) before I was brave enough to say this, I got a rough reponse from architects who reponded that if the writer does not 'know' the topic then he or she should not write on it. The converse, in my experience, is that other professions (yea Gods, even the medicos now) do endeavour to generate a language in which the outcome and impact of their work can be described in language that is accessible to a wider audience.
November 28th, 2005, 01:58 PM
well the objective of the communicator is to communicate..........so if architects get wrapped up in jargon when describing their work then they've failed.
November 28th, 2005, 02:03 PM
"This is because there just does not seem to be an accessible language in which people who are non-architects (and who are not stupid or ignorant because of that) can write in, with regard to bringing architectural or design meanings and forms to wider, lay, audiences."
it's not the language. it's the writer.
November 28th, 2005, 02:49 PM
Or it could be the reader? This is what I get for trying (one more time) to open up this topic of architects and communicating with the wider world. OK, I've learned my lesson and I leave it to you - carry on architects :)
November 28th, 2005, 02:51 PM
This isn't even a new debate. I believe it was Inigo Jones who struggled to be taken seriously as an artist, and wished to become part of the Royal court (back in the days of the Stewarts).
November 28th, 2005, 03:07 PM
what an arse.....how can you be taken seriously with a name like Inigo?
It's his ma I blame.
Hey escotregen, have good time at the Rad..............
November 28th, 2005, 03:28 PM
Actually laughing out loud here, and I'm in a public place...
Maybe being Welsh didn't help him much either.
November 28th, 2005, 03:30 PM
esco - if you don't respect your audience, they will not listen to or read your words.
so no, it's not the reader.
writers must write for their target audience.
tho to be honest - i don't really understand your final post when you said:
"This is what I get for trying (one more time) to open up this topic of architects and communicating with the wider world. OK, I've learned my lesson and I leave it to you - carry on architects"
Obvously I'm blaming the writer in this instance! ;)
November 28th, 2005, 04:57 PM
Hey escotregen! Don't be like that!
I appreciate you raising the issue!
IMHO most architects can't write for toffee. Think it's probably a visual thing. Over development of the visual centres of the brain maybe? Dunno... Certainly the Mackman was dyslexic and it is a curiously common trait in architects so there could be a link. Lutyens, for instance, preferred sketching to writing. It's probably the 'a drawing is worth a thousand words' thing i.e. if thats the medium you like then it's easier to express yourself through drawing than writing so you never actually develop a convincing method of expressing yourself through words as images inevitably take priority.
One thing though, why is it that architects, especially american ones, tend to indulge in obscurist drivel? Is it a stab at artistic credibility by trying to appear elitist? Or is it to disguse a lack of substance? Why can't they just come out and say what they mean or what they are trying to do. Or is it that it would be so obvious that it would lose it's mystique? And why did deconstructionism, an obscure french literary movement, become so popular with certain architects anyway?
November 28th, 2005, 05:12 PM
deconstruction-ism?: cos the name seemed to suggest a relation to constructionism.
anyway, if you fancy, I reckon 'deconstructionism' was just iconic architecture before 3D software was made affordable.
A c e_____ I n
November 28th, 2005, 05:29 PM
Hmmm maybe being the postmodernist, end of history, generation 'x' er that I am (Francis Fukuyama and all that) I just don't go in for ideology and isms.....! :runaway:
November 28th, 2005, 05:47 PM
you know gweilo, one of these days you're gonna betray that statement ;)
November 28th, 2005, 05:54 PM
I thought I just did... ;) !
November 28th, 2005, 06:23 PM
deconstruction-ism?: cos the name seemed to suggest a relation to constructionism.
Towards the end of a lecture on "disjunction" recently, the lecturer added a quick comment at the end - "perhaps the reason that architects take up philosophies such as disjunction, is that they can visualise it", and I just thought, that's it. Deconstruvism has bugger all to with Derrida, and all to do with the architects imagining what a building that's been de-constructed looks like. Same with Fouccault and disjunction and whoever else.