The Hidden Glasgow Forums

Im sure they had a hard decision for worst planning decision - It would take me a good while to go through the dross thats being agreed!

Fair enough, but given what was on the Silverburn site before I really can't see why it was such a bad decision.

From Architecture Scotland - "Also on the winners' list is the new Casino at Glasgow's Springfield Quay which takes the 'Zit Award' for Worst Building".

I'll settle for that. A Zit. Anyone know who the Architect was? They must have let their Kids design it on Etch a Sketch.

I wonder what the Planners were doing the day that one landed on their desk. It must have been during the Summer or Christmas Hols - good time to sneak anything through as they cannot be arsed looking at it too much.

There is some videos about the Carbuncle Awards online -

Behind the Carbuncles Penny Lewis talks about what the carbunbcles were all about.

The Carbuncle Candidates This is a video of the judges going round the areas that were submitted for an award. I think this video is actually quite funny!

The results
The results of the judges decisions. (In case you missed it...)

Richard.

Cheers for that, TLR. Good to hear the dulcet tones of Nigel Buckland too - Vidz was the best dole TV ever.

Notice how most of the buildings hated by people come from the modernest 'minimalist' thing from the 1960's or any number of modern offshoots from that idea yet no one gives carbuncles to the old victorian style 'maximalist'or cluttered buildings - Please planners construct a victorian style building for once not another cube with glass and shiny bits

I nominate the St Mungo Museum of Religious Life and Art.



an eighties carbuncle.

Dexter St. Clair wrote:I nominate the St Mungo Museum of Religious Life and Art.



an eighties carbuncle.

Me hopes yer pictures are mixed up , That is a lovely building

Dexter St. Clair wrote:I nominate the St Mungo Museum of Religious Life and Art.


an eighties carbuncle.

Agreed. I hate the ill-advised contrived barbarism of the stupid rought cut stone cladding. That style of building would be more likely to've been roughcast.

quote]I hate how noone ever talks about how bad British architecture really is. I hate the bastards who make these buildings. So here I am, taking the piss out of them.[/quote]

I could not be arsed starting a new thread but the Badbritisharchitecture.blogspot caught my eye. There's a couple of Scottish projects mentioned.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_sYk285E5cKc/SI9_9HvgheI/AAAAAAAABZk/aahxEC7eNTo/s400/Hugh+Hunter+at+Prestwick+Academy.jpg

His own comments deserve to be ripped. There is no British schools system. There are different systems in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Academy system where rich bastards are given taxpayers money to sponsor selective schools does not exist in Scotland. Prestwick Academy is a comprehensive school run by a local council. it is a typical product of the Public Private Partnership school initiative with a life expectancy of thirty years and built on the cheap.



[

This is an academy, the pride of Britain's schools system. The academy programme has created a generation of buildings that by and large are made of render, in white and coloured panels, designed by terrible architects like Ryder who treat them like just another developer piece of shit.

When he really gets upset about a building the CAPS LOCK goes on.

ARCHIAL, I AM TRYING REALLY HARD NOT TO PUBLISH SO MUCH OF YOUR SHIT. I HAVE NO PARTICULAR AGENDA, I DON'T WANT TO HATE YOU ANY MORE THAN ANY OF THE OTHER SHIT ARCHITECTS IN THIS COUNTRY. BUT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE WHEN YOU KEEP SENDING OUT IMAGES LIKE THIS.
THIS IS A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (DESPITE LOOKING MUCH LIKE A 1980S BUSINESS PARK). IT'S IN A CONSERVATION AREA IN EDINBURGH AND HAS PLANNING PERMISSION.
ARCHIAL'S IDEAS ARE SO PISS WEAK THAT THE DRAWING KIND OF FADES INTO TRANSLUCENCY. THE CAD/SKETCHUP MONKEY WAS PRESUMABLY SIMULATING THE LIMP-WRISTED INABILITY OF ARCHIAL'S DRAFSTMEN TO PUSH DOWN HARD ENOUGH ON THE FUCKING FELT TIP.

All the modern Flats being built in Glasgow. For years every town and city in the UK had indivdual housing styles with its own distictive style. Now you travel to any city in the \UK and they all look the same. Arse hole design. Every town has them.

I'm also rapidly coming to the conclusion that very little that has been built in the last twenty years is of much merit - there's an Emperor's New Clothes aspect to it, where architects cry us all as ignorant if we criticise modern stuff, but there's no denying that a huge majority of it is just shit, both in terms of design and materials. I know we live in an age of value engineering, but have these people no desire to create something which is, you know, aesthetic for aesthetic's sake?

And I agree, hazy - I mourn the loss of a vernacular architecture.

Total ditto.

It seems to be an oddly UK phenomenon too.

I lived for a long time in Berlin. Despite the fact that Berlin is a proletarian and bankrupt city (which has much in common with Glasgow in many ways), it has some amazing building projects going on all the time. The new Hauptbanhof (Main Station) is a fantastic building -- not only architecturally attractive, but very utilitarian too -- it has a complete shopping centre inside it. There's dozens of other examples of public works being done there that are attractive, well-thought out, and likely to last generations.

They are also enlarging and expanding the (excellent) public transport system constantly -- and the transport system they have would be an excellent model for Glasgow to follow. I had a car there, but rarely drove, because the U-Bahn, S-Bahn or tram, was faster and cheaper.

It's not just Berlin too, I've lived in other countries, all poorer than the UK, Czech Republic, Argentina and others -- all of whom are doing great public work, and have greatly thought-out systems.

So the real question is what is it that is wrong with UK architects and Planning Committees? They have more money than most of their European counterparts -- and yet fail miserably in comparison. Glasgow has suffered greatly for a long time at their hands (Anderson Centre anyone?). They seem obsessed with bland, generic glass and steel and concrete structures, and the latest pointless must-have UK tourist-architecture (i.e. a curvy bridge, a tower, a big wheel, whatever -- the same old generic crap that every UK city wants.)

Why could Silverburn or Braehead not have had a spur of railway going to it, integral into its design? That way they would not have caused quite the same level of queues on the motorways that they currently do. A railway to Braehead could also be extended to the Airport. There's three parallel roads that run in the direction of Braehead from the general Govan area -- at least one of them could have been light rail or a tram line.

For that matter, why could the St Enoch's Centre not re-incorporate a station and reconnect all the empty track rotting away. Much of those routes are still useful and could really help alleviate traffic. (If they were really brave, the Council could actually base the design of that on Mackintosh's Railway Terminus plans, and really do something unique and special)

When you look at old photos and maps of Glasgow you realise that so, so much has been lost, that no-one in the Council seems to think of creating a lasting, useful and attractive legacy for the city. Union St and Renfield street must be the most polluted in the entire country, due to the buses running up them.

Everything seems to be done on the cheap. While certainly no-one wants another Scottish Parliament fiasco, and wants the council to spend our money wisely, that does not mean that we have to produce the cheapest possible crap for the lowest price (and likely hiring someone in the council's brother-in-law in the process). I'm certain that a well-thought out plan that is genuinely attractive and likely to last, is one that Glaswegians would be proud to pay a little extra for.

gap74 wrote:I'm also rapidly coming to the conclusion that very little that has been built in the last twenty years is of much merit - there's an Emperor's New Clothes aspect to it, where architects cry us all as ignorant if we criticise modern stuff, but there's no denying that a huge majority of it is just shit, both in terms of design and materials. I know we live in an age of value engineering, but have these people no desire to create something which is, you know, aesthetic for aesthetic's sake?

And I agree, hazy - I mourn the loss of a vernacular architecture.

Welcome Owlnation. Can I vote for you?