daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Architecture

Architecture news and discussions on all buildings types and urban spaces
» Classic Architecture | European Classic Architecture and Landscapes | Public Space | Shopping Architecture | Design & Lifestyle | Urban Renewal and Redevelopment



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old March 27th, 2007, 05:16 PM   #41
Unionstation13
Registered User
 
Unionstation13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Indianapolis/Lafayette
Posts: 3,439
Likes (Received): 37

Quote:
Originally Posted by taboe View Post
Agree. I've been there and it's ok now, but I sincerely doubt that it will age well...
We should build goverment buildings in timeless styles, or neoclassical, or victorian.
Not modern, its pretty sad when my statehouse looks better than the scottish parliament.
__________________
Peter- "Geesh, Meg is in there taking a nap under water!".
Unionstation13 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old April 2nd, 2007, 12:17 AM   #42
Roberto-i
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 228
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unionstation13 View Post
they totally ignored Scottlands rich history,
this thing, it does not reflect the wonderful things Scottland has done,
they should have built something of a more timeless style.
Indeed!
deconstructivism is a style for kids not for what has to be built in reality , that's one of the most awful and ridicolous buildigs I've seen in my life , shame shame on architects and those politicians who approved it.
Roberto-i no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2007, 02:41 AM   #43
Unionstation13
Registered User
 
Unionstation13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Indianapolis/Lafayette
Posts: 3,439
Likes (Received): 37

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto-i View Post
Indeed!
deconstructivism is a style for kids not for what has to be built in reality , that's one of the most awful and ridicolous buildigs I've seen in my life , shame shame on architects and those politicians who approved it.
And people call it beautiful, whats beautiful are the old buildings around it,
that clump of recycled tin and plywood is just...bleh.
__________________
Peter- "Geesh, Meg is in there taking a nap under water!".
Unionstation13 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2007, 02:46 AM   #44
NeilF
Reasons To Be Cheerful
 
NeilF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Edinburgh / Belfast
Posts: 552
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unionstation13 View Post
We should build goverment buildings in timeless styles, or neoclassical, or victorian.
Not modern, its pretty sad when my statehouse looks better than the scottish parliament.
This has got to be a bad joke?

I'll have to say - I live now five minutes walk from Holyrood and I'll be the first to admit that I have my problems with it (the faux bamboo, the shade covers for the windows that don't take into account the fact that it's in Scotland, not Spain and so forth) but to suggest that parliament buildings should take a particular form is insane - especially when such suggestions about neoclassical style and Victorianism are brought into it.

Neoclassical may have worked in Edinburgh because of the other archetecture around it but one needs to ask oneself what the purpose of that would be? It will end up looking like this hammy monstrosity from 1990 that sits on the Royal Mile:



The people who chose the design for the Scottish Parliament made grave errors. Deciding to make it a modern building was not one of them. Anyone with any sense of Edinburgh, who isn't concerned with making buildings in 1990 that attempt, badly, to look like buildings from 1790, would understand that.

A successful parliament building should account for the history of the country that it represents and account for the archetecture in its immediate vacinity. Judging by Scottish tradition, it would then have to be a massive, square, stone building with a disproportionately large folly of a tower.

All in all, I like the building itself. I'm not sure its style will last and I'm not sure it fits its location, but given that it could have been Victorianism debauchery or neoclassicism, I'm glad they made it the way they did.

P.S. Have you ever been to Edinburgh, and seen the buildings directly around the Scottish Parliament? Most are 60s council housing, the Palace and this. You focus on, "the old buildings around it," is sort of a fallacy.

NeilF no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2007, 02:51 AM   #45
Unionstation13
Registered User
 
Unionstation13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Indianapolis/Lafayette
Posts: 3,439
Likes (Received): 37

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilF View Post
This has got to be a bad joke?

I'll have to say - I live now five minutes walk from Holyrood and I'll be the first to admit that I have my problems with it (the faux bamboo, the shade covers for the windows that don't take into account the fact that it's in Scotland, not Spain and so forth) but to suggest that parliament buildings should take a particular form is insane - especially when such suggestions about neoclassical style and Victorianism are brought into it.

Neoclassical may have worked in Edinburgh because of the other archetecture around it but one needs to ask oneself what the purpose of that would be? It will end up looking like this hammy monstrosity from 1990 that sits on the Royal Mile:



The people who chose the design for the Scottish Parliament made grave errors. Deciding to make it a modern building was not one of them. Anyone with any sense of Edinburgh, who isn't concerned with making buildings in 1990 that attempt, badly, to look like buildings from 1790, would understand that.

A successful parliament building should account for the history of the country that it represents and account for the archetecture in its immediate vacinity. Judging by Scottish tradition, it would then have to be a massive, square, stone building with a disproportionately large folly of a tower.

All in all, I like the building itself. I'm not sure its style will last and I'm not sure it fits its location, but given that it could have been Victorianism debauchery or neoclassicism, I'm glad they made it the way they did.

P.S. Have you ever been to Edinburgh, and seen the buildings directly around the Scottish Parliament? Most are 60s council housing, the Palace and this:

well, it dident exactly have to be notre dam,
but something more classical, I mean, those buildings you posted look better than the scottish parliament, something that was pastful, timeless, and influential of scottlands history would have been better, modernism, it doesent work for goverment buildings in historical areas.
__________________
Peter- "Geesh, Meg is in there taking a nap under water!".
Unionstation13 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2007, 02:58 AM   #46
NeilF
Reasons To Be Cheerful
 
NeilF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Edinburgh / Belfast
Posts: 552
Likes (Received): 3

The SAS Radisson (the picture shown) is an absolute blight on the Royal Mile and there are few who disagree otherwise. It doesn't look anything like the rest of the Royal Mile, it doesn't even fit the scale of the rest of the Royal Mile. It's an absolute mess and that destroys the impression of Canongate more than Brutalism would.

You must account for something when talking about the history of Edinburgh - it has an archetectural history that is older than America. I live in a building that was built in the early 1700s. Right across the street is one from 1622. Just across the road is something from 2007. Edinburgh doesn't have a style. It's a hotchpotch of "contempory" archeceture that stretches over 500 - 600 years. It has such a diverse history in that (and many other) senses and a modern (although not necessarily what was built) parliament building is more in keeping with that than that nonsense from 1990.

Don't get me wrong, I don't particularly like this building, in terms of its location or purpose (I do like the building, but that's ignoring the subjectivity of use and location) but I will resolutely defend that it should have been a modern building.

[img]http://www.*************/architects/Benson_Forsyth/mos/1.Museum-S.jpg[/img]

This ^ is one of my favourite examples of modern archetecture in Edinburgh's Old Town. It works a lot more than the building at Holyrood, while still being distinctly modern. The building at Holyrood shouldn't, however, distract from the fact that it is a wonderful building, just wrong for purpose and (yes) location and that the decision to build a modern building was the correct one.

Last edited by NeilF; April 2nd, 2007 at 03:07 AM.
NeilF no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2007, 03:02 AM   #47
tanzirian
Registered User
 
tanzirian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,693
Likes (Received): 491

There are many beautiful examples of modern architecture, but I can't say that this is one of them. IMO, amorphous designs like this one work well for museums (etc) but not for national assemblies.
tanzirian no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2007, 03:08 AM   #48
Unionstation13
Registered User
 
Unionstation13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Indianapolis/Lafayette
Posts: 3,439
Likes (Received): 37

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilF View Post
The SAS Radisson (the picture shown) is an absolute blight on the Royal Mile and there are few who disagree otherwise. It doesn't look anything like the rest of the Royal Mile, it doesn't even fit the scale of the rest of the Royal Mile. It's an absolute mess and that destroys the impression of Canongate more than Brutalism would.

You must account for something when talking about the history of Edinburgh - it has an archetectural history that is older than America. I live in a building that was built in the early 1700s. Right across the street is one from 1622. Just across the road is something from 2007. Edinburgh doesn't have a style. It's a hotchpotch of "contempory" archeceture that stretches over 500 - 600 years. It has such a diverse history in that (and many other) senses and a modern (although not necessarily what was built) parliament building is more in keeping with that than that nonsense from 1990.
Lol, you make it sound as if we have no old buildings, I live in the same kind of neighborhood(but more early 19th century, and early 20th century)
I understand what your saying. But, this is still a mistake, and insults the history of scottland, its not just speaking for Edinburgh, its speaking for the whole country.
__________________
Peter- "Geesh, Meg is in there taking a nap under water!".
Unionstation13 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2007, 03:13 AM   #49
NeilF
Reasons To Be Cheerful
 
NeilF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Edinburgh / Belfast
Posts: 552
Likes (Received): 3

How is it, though? How does it not account for Scotland's history? This is something I don't understand. Scotland's whole archetectural history is littered with massive follies based on what was popular at the time. The Scott Monument will always be an indication of that, but the town halls at Port Glasgow and Aberdeen also prove the point.



The building here (minus the towers, which are considerably older) was originally going to be used for the parliament until it was deemed too small. In a way, I feel this indicates what I've been talking about - there are distinctly modern elements to it, but it works with its surroundings. Holyrood doesn't, and in that sense, I agree with you. I just don't think that's a reason to suggest that it shouldn't have been a distinctly modern building. Just one that worked better with its surroundings.

I think we agree, in a small way at least, on the basic point that Holyrood doesn't work with its surroundings. I do, however, very much dispute the points you make as to why. Maybe I have a different view because I actually live, not only in Edinburgh, but in the same small part of Edinburgh as the parliament (as well as the castle, the palace and so forth) I'm not sure. I just don't understand how, in any way, it ignores Scotland's history.
NeilF no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2007, 03:17 AM   #50
Overground
Registered User
 
Overground's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 1,594
Likes (Received): 125

It looks really western Canadian to me...suppose it's the wood.

I guess a traditional Westminster style rectangular seating arrangment like the British and Canadian House of Commons would look out of place. A touch of green would have been nice though.
Overground no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 20th, 2007, 02:10 AM   #51
Its AlL gUUd
Cute but Psycho...
 
Its AlL gUUd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 6,017
Likes (Received): 296

People would judge a building from the exterior and this building is a monstrocity and UGLY on the outside. For a parliament building it is just BAD.
__________________
I T S Y
Its AlL gUUd no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 20th, 2007, 04:26 PM   #52
Slartibartfas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vedunia
Posts: 11,539
Likes (Received): 5827

Despite the bad reviews of some here, I still have to say that from the few pictures I saw from it, that I love the style.

I cant judge however how incompatible it is with the surrounding.
Slartibartfas no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 03:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu