Nice buildings

focuszing723

Now that is just a bloody mess. The Lloyds building looks like a good setting for a movie of 1984 to me.

TheBigBean

Some mosques

Djenne made from mudbrick



The Blue Mosque



Isafahan

darkhairedlord

focuszing723 said:

That does look good Big Bean.

The architecture and stone work around Bath, from the Romans to John Wood.

The place has an atmosphere to it and is always busy with tourists. I like going there.

Each to their own. Hate the place, especially being dragged around christmas shopping. I have to lose reception while mrs DHL is queuing in m&s for the bog, then slip away and hide at the bike shop

focuszing723

darkhairedlord said:

focuszing723 said:

That does look good Big Bean.

The architecture and stone work around Bath, from the Romans to John Wood.

The place has an atmosphere to it and is always busy with tourists. I like going there.

Each to their own. Hate the place, especially being dragged around christmas shopping. I have to lose reception while mrs DHL is queuing in m&s for the bog, then slip away and hide at the bike shop

The Architecture is great though, timeless natural stone classic. I normally have a walk about the place while the family are enjoying the shops, which is fair enough. Quite an atmosphere when the Ruby is on.

TheBigBean

I fixed my broken links. Bit of a posting failure.

First.Aspect

St Peters Seminary is for sale if anyone is interested. It is a fixer upper.

thegreatdivide

bianchimoon said:

FLW's falling water

Excellent choice, and I’m also a fan of Mid-century modern American buildings as well. Heavily influenced, or designed by students of FLW.

focuszing723

Wack in a huf haus here, for the Teutonic efficient splendour.

rjsterry

focuszing723 said:

darkhairedlord said:

focuszing723 said:

That does look good Big Bean.

The architecture and stone work around Bath, from the Romans to John Wood.

The place has an atmosphere to it and is always busy with tourists. I like going there.

Each to their own. Hate the place, especially being dragged around christmas shopping. I have to lose reception while mrs DHL is queuing in m&s for the bog, then slip away and hide at the bike shop

The Architecture is great though, timeless natural stone classic. I normally have a walk about the place while the family are enjoying the shops, which is fair enough. Quite an atmosphere when the Ruby is on.

It's very clearly of the English 18th century, so I wouldn't say it's timeless. It's fortunate for Bath that the local stone is a nice colour and good for carving + the topography helps with the views. Most of it is just a veneer of ashlar facing held on to the buildings with thousands of oyster shells. If you think the Lloyd's Building is a mess, you should see the back of the Circus. There are some nice set pieces of Georgian town planning. but a lot of it is just the Barratt Homes of their day, thrown up for a quick buck.

Pross

Maybe a stretch to call it nice but interesting and experimental

Swinhay House in Gloucestershire


https://swinhay.com/project/swinhay-house/

rick_chasey

focuszing723 said:

Now that is just a bloody mess. The Lloyds building looks like a good setting for a movie of 1984 to me.

Pretty tidy on the inside.

I just like how it is so specific to its function.

It’s an actual market and a very big one (as well as a very old one) and it’s all done to help it function well.

I also just like that all the moving parts are outside so you can see when it’s their rush hour etc.

rick_chasey

Right next to it is Leadenhall Market (you can just see the Lloyds building peaking through)



Lovely building. Populated by insurance brokers which is less fun (including two appalling pubs)

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

Right next to it is Leadenhall Market (you can just see the Lloyds building peaking through)



Lovely building. Populated by insurance brokers which is less fun (including two appalling pubs)

Now you see, that doesn't look all that much different at first glance to the inside of the Venetian in Vegas. Why is one the height of tat, but the other a work of art?

rick_chasey

Bit further down towards Liverpool Street station is broad gate circle.

Think it fell into disrepair for a while after it’s 80s heyday but they’ve turned the circle into a sort of restaurant bar vibe and I like how it’s just small enough that it feels like the vibes from all the different venues reflect into the centre and bounce off each other

focuszing723

rick_chasey said:

focuszing723 said:

Now that is just a bloody mess. The Lloyds building looks like a good setting for a movie of 1984 to me.

Pretty tidy on the inside.

I just like how it is so specific to its function.

It’s an actual market and a very big one (as well as a very old one) and it’s all done to help it function well.

I also just like that all the moving parts are outside so you can see when it’s their rush hour etc.

Yeah that's a fair point. I guess it suits the hustle bustle of a clinical financial district.

First.Aspect

I'm surprised there's not a bit more love for art deco here.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

focuszing723 said:

darkhairedlord said:

focuszing723 said:

That does look good Big Bean.

The architecture and stone work around Bath, from the Romans to John Wood.

The place has an atmosphere to it and is always busy with tourists. I like going there.

Each to their own. Hate the place, especially being dragged around christmas shopping. I have to lose reception while mrs DHL is queuing in m&s for the bog, then slip away and hide at the bike shop

The Architecture is great though, timeless natural stone classic. I normally have a walk about the place while the family are enjoying the shops, which is fair enough. Quite an atmosphere when the Ruby is on.

It's very clearly of the English 18th century, so I wouldn't say it's timeless. It's fortunate for Bath that the local stone is a nice colour and good for carving + the topography helps with the views. Most of it is just a veneer of ashlar facing held on to the buildings with thousands of oyster shells. If you think the Lloyd's Building is a mess, you should see the back of the Circus. There are some nice set pieces of Georgian town planning. but a lot of it is just the Barratt Homes of their day, thrown up for a quick buck.

Is this a Bristolian passing judgement on the world heritage listed Bath? Anyway, none it prevents focuszing having a nice walk.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

focuszing723 said:

darkhairedlord said:

focuszing723 said:

That does look good Big Bean.

The architecture and stone work around Bath, from the Romans to John Wood.

The place has an atmosphere to it and is always busy with tourists. I like going there.

Each to their own. Hate the place, especially being dragged around christmas shopping. I have to lose reception while mrs DHL is queuing in m&s for the bog, then slip away and hide at the bike shop

The Architecture is great though, timeless natural stone classic. I normally have a walk about the place while the family are enjoying the shops, which is fair enough. Quite an atmosphere when the Ruby is on.

It's very clearly of the English 18th century, so I wouldn't say it's timeless. It's fortunate for Bath that the local stone is a nice colour and good for carving + the topography helps with the views. Most of it is just a veneer of ashlar facing held on to the buildings with thousands of oyster shells. If you think the Lloyd's Building is a mess, you should see the back of the Circus. There are some nice set pieces of Georgian town planning. but a lot of it is just the Barratt Homes of their day, thrown up for a quick buck.

Is this a Bristolian passing judgement on the world heritage listed Bath? Anyway, none it prevents focuszing having a nice walk.

😄 Maybe a little, plus knowing too much about what the insides of those 'lovely old buildings' are like. It obviously does deserve its World Heritage Site status, but it's worth remembering that most of the original builders had as much interest in the finer points of architecture as today's developers. The WHS status also means that the the whole centre of the city is treated almost like a museum rather than as buildings to live and work in.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

focuszing723 said:

darkhairedlord said:

focuszing723 said:

That does look good Big Bean.

The architecture and stone work around Bath, from the Romans to John Wood.

The place has an atmosphere to it and is always busy with tourists. I like going there.

Each to their own. Hate the place, especially being dragged around christmas shopping. I have to lose reception while mrs DHL is queuing in m&s for the bog, then slip away and hide at the bike shop

The Architecture is great though, timeless natural stone classic. I normally have a walk about the place while the family are enjoying the shops, which is fair enough. Quite an atmosphere when the Ruby is on.

It's very clearly of the English 18th century, so I wouldn't say it's timeless. It's fortunate for Bath that the local stone is a nice colour and good for carving + the topography helps with the views. Most of it is just a veneer of ashlar facing held on to the buildings with thousands of oyster shells. If you think the Lloyd's Building is a mess, you should see the back of the Circus. There are some nice set pieces of Georgian town planning. but a lot of it is just the Barratt Homes of their day, thrown up for a quick buck.

Is this a Bristolian passing judgement on the world heritage listed Bath? Anyway, none it prevents focuszing having a nice walk.

😄 Maybe a little, plus knowing too much about what the insides of those 'lovely old buildings' are like. It obviously does deserve its World Heritage Site status, but it's worth remembering that most of the original builders had as much interest in the finer points of architecture as today's developers. The WHS status also means that the the whole centre of the city is treated almost like a museum rather than as buildings to live and work in.

I'll take that as a solid yes.

I realise I'm hopelessly unqualified to make this argument, and that many boring architects do concern themselves with how a building functions; however, many architects focus solely on how the building looks. As mentioned before, Niemeyer's buildings are terrible on the inside, they are very large art pieces. Therefore, when only the facade of the Royal Crescent was built and any old rubbish was bolted on behind, I'm not sure that this is all that different. The developers created a first of its kind and made sure it looked good. That's more than the average developer today who focuses on maximising the ratio of rooms to floor area.

Pross

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

focuszing723 said:

darkhairedlord said:

focuszing723 said:

That does look good Big Bean.

The architecture and stone work around Bath, from the Romans to John Wood.

The place has an atmosphere to it and is always busy with tourists. I like going there.

Each to their own. Hate the place, especially being dragged around christmas shopping. I have to lose reception while mrs DHL is queuing in m&s for the bog, then slip away and hide at the bike shop

The Architecture is great though, timeless natural stone classic. I normally have a walk about the place while the family are enjoying the shops, which is fair enough. Quite an atmosphere when the Ruby is on.

It's very clearly of the English 18th century, so I wouldn't say it's timeless. It's fortunate for Bath that the local stone is a nice colour and good for carving + the topography helps with the views. Most of it is just a veneer of ashlar facing held on to the buildings with thousands of oyster shells. If you think the Lloyd's Building is a mess, you should see the back of the Circus. There are some nice set pieces of Georgian town planning. but a lot of it is just the Barratt Homes of their day, thrown up for a quick buck.

Is this a Bristolian passing judgement on the world heritage listed Bath? Anyway, none it prevents focuszing having a nice walk.

😄 Maybe a little, plus knowing too much about what the insides of those 'lovely old buildings' are like. It obviously does deserve its World Heritage Site status, but it's worth remembering that most of the original builders had as much interest in the finer points of architecture as today's developers. The WHS status also means that the the whole centre of the city is treated almost like a museum rather than as buildings to live and work in.

Yep, it's a nightmare even trying to carry out highway works. You also have to consider the impact of any development outside of the WHS on those inside it.

There's a world heritage site near me, it covers a typical Welsh valley town of terraced housing. Some of my best friends in school lived there and those of us in 'nicer' areas took the pi$$ out of their slum town mercilessly. Now, due to the limits of the WHS in their home town extending to the top of a mountain overlooking my home town any development in 'my' town has to consider the impact on the view for the folk up there. One for the irony thread!

laurentian

The first time I saw the cathedral at Strasbourg, it took my breath away - it was pretty much this view although I'm sure there are better photos

rick_chasey

Very close to me here in Cambridge is a new mosque:







Not normally a big fan of mosques (too much floorspace required makes it often look utilitarian) but this is quite striking. I don't normally associate wood with mosques.

Bit of a shame you have to go through quite a narrow entrance to get to the front via a security guard etc.

Less fun was that Erdogan opened it and he had his security pals behaving in their usual thuggish ways.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

focuszing723 said:

darkhairedlord said:

focuszing723 said:

That does look good Big Bean.

The architecture and stone work around Bath, from the Romans to John Wood.

The place has an atmosphere to it and is always busy with tourists. I like going there.

Each to their own. Hate the place, especially being dragged around christmas shopping. I have to lose reception while mrs DHL is queuing in m&s for the bog, then slip away and hide at the bike shop

The Architecture is great though, timeless natural stone classic. I normally have a walk about the place while the family are enjoying the shops, which is fair enough. Quite an atmosphere when the Ruby is on.

It's very clearly of the English 18th century, so I wouldn't say it's timeless. It's fortunate for Bath that the local stone is a nice colour and good for carving + the topography helps with the views. Most of it is just a veneer of ashlar facing held on to the buildings with thousands of oyster shells. If you think the Lloyd's Building is a mess, you should see the back of the Circus. There are some nice set pieces of Georgian town planning. but a lot of it is just the Barratt Homes of their day, thrown up for a quick buck.

Is this a Bristolian passing judgement on the world heritage listed Bath? Anyway, none it prevents focuszing having a nice walk.

😄 Maybe a little, plus knowing too much about what the insides of those 'lovely old buildings' are like. It obviously does deserve its World Heritage Site status, but it's worth remembering that most of the original builders had as much interest in the finer points of architecture as today's developers. The WHS status also means that the the whole centre of the city is treated almost like a museum rather than as buildings to live and work in.

I'll take that as a solid yes.

I realise I'm hopelessly unqualified to make this argument, and that many boring architects do concern themselves with how a building functions; however, many architects focus solely on how the building looks. As mentioned before, Niemeyer's buildings are terrible on the inside, they are very large art pieces. Therefore, when only the facade of the Royal Crescent was built and any old rubbish was bolted on behind, I'm not sure that this is all that different. The developers created a first of its kind and made sure it looked good. That's more than the average developer today who focuses on maximising the ratio of rooms to floor area.

No, the Royal Crescent, Circus and Queen's Square were all premium property from the start, and the interiors reflect that, too. The comment about the backs is just a reflection that the 'rules' that each builder had to work to didn't cover the rear elevation and this is also the bit most altered over time, so you get all sorts going on. It's the second and third order stuff that makes up most of the background of Bath that is pretty mainly because the stone is a nice colour and the fronts were designed as set pieces when the land was divided up into leasehold building plots. Once you are through the front door they are just the same as any other terraced house: front room; back room; stairs in the back corner; repeat. And a lot of them are really thrown together. You get almost exactly the same thing in Islington, it's just built of brick instead of stone.

For my personal preference, Bath is a bit prissy and I prefer the more vigorous clash of different styles of Bristol.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

focuszing723 said:

darkhairedlord said:

focuszing723 said:

That does look good Big Bean.

The architecture and stone work around Bath, from the Romans to John Wood.

The place has an atmosphere to it and is always busy with tourists. I like going there.

Each to their own. Hate the place, especially being dragged around christmas shopping. I have to lose reception while mrs DHL is queuing in m&s for the bog, then slip away and hide at the bike shop

The Architecture is great though, timeless natural stone classic. I normally have a walk about the place while the family are enjoying the shops, which is fair enough. Quite an atmosphere when the Ruby is on.

It's very clearly of the English 18th century, so I wouldn't say it's timeless. It's fortunate for Bath that the local stone is a nice colour and good for carving + the topography helps with the views. Most of it is just a veneer of ashlar facing held on to the buildings with thousands of oyster shells. If you think the Lloyd's Building is a mess, you should see the back of the Circus. There are some nice set pieces of Georgian town planning. but a lot of it is just the Barratt Homes of their day, thrown up for a quick buck.

Is this a Bristolian passing judgement on the world heritage listed Bath? Anyway, none it prevents focuszing having a nice walk.

😄 Maybe a little, plus knowing too much about what the insides of those 'lovely old buildings' are like. It obviously does deserve its World Heritage Site status, but it's worth remembering that most of the original builders had as much interest in the finer points of architecture as today's developers. The WHS status also means that the the whole centre of the city is treated almost like a museum rather than as buildings to live and work in.

I'll take that as a solid yes.

I realise I'm hopelessly unqualified to make this argument, and that many boring architects do concern themselves with how a building functions; however, many architects focus solely on how the building looks. As mentioned before, Niemeyer's buildings are terrible on the inside, they are very large art pieces. Therefore, when only the facade of the Royal Crescent was built and any old rubbish was bolted on behind, I'm not sure that this is all that different. The developers created a first of its kind and made sure it looked good. That's more than the average developer today who focuses on maximising the ratio of rooms to floor area.

No, the Royal Crescent, Circus and Queen's Square were all premium property from the start, and the interiors reflect that, too. The comment about the backs is just a reflection that the 'rules' that each builder had to work to didn't cover the rear elevation and this is also the bit most altered over time, so you get all sorts going on. It's the second and third order stuff that makes up most of the background of Bath that is pretty mainly because the stone is a nice colour and the fronts were designed as set pieces when the land was divided up into leasehold building plots. Once you are through the front door they are just the same as any other terraced house: front room; back room; stairs in the back corner; repeat. You get almost exactly the same thing in Islington, it's just built of brick instead of stone.

For my personal preference, Bath is a bit prissy and I prefer the more vigorous clash of different styles of Bristol.

Edinburgh.

This thread is now CLOSED.

focuszing723

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

focuszing723 said:

darkhairedlord said:

focuszing723 said:

That does look good Big Bean.

The architecture and stone work around Bath, from the Romans to John Wood.

The place has an atmosphere to it and is always busy with tourists. I like going there.

Each to their own. Hate the place, especially being dragged around christmas shopping. I have to lose reception while mrs DHL is queuing in m&s for the bog, then slip away and hide at the bike shop

The Architecture is great though, timeless natural stone classic. I normally have a walk about the place while the family are enjoying the shops, which is fair enough. Quite an atmosphere when the Ruby is on.

It's very clearly of the English 18th century, so I wouldn't say it's timeless. It's fortunate for Bath that the local stone is a nice colour and good for carving + the topography helps with the views. Most of it is just a veneer of ashlar facing held on to the buildings with thousands of oyster shells. If you think the Lloyd's Building is a mess, you should see the back of the Circus. There are some nice set pieces of Georgian town planning. but a lot of it is just the Barratt Homes of their day, thrown up for a quick buck.

Is this a Bristolian passing judgement on the world heritage listed Bath? Anyway, none it prevents focuszing having a nice walk.

😄 Maybe a little, plus knowing too much about what the insides of those 'lovely old buildings' are like. It obviously does deserve its World Heritage Site status, but it's worth remembering that most of the original builders had as much interest in the finer points of architecture as today's developers. The WHS status also means that the the whole centre of the city is treated almost like a museum rather than as buildings to live and work in.

I'll take that as a solid yes.

I realise I'm hopelessly unqualified to make this argument, and that many boring architects do concern themselves with how a building functions; however, many architects focus solely on how the building looks. As mentioned before, Niemeyer's buildings are terrible on the inside, they are very large art pieces. Therefore, when only the facade of the Royal Crescent was built and any old rubbish was bolted on behind, I'm not sure that this is all that different. The developers created a first of its kind and made sure it looked good. That's more than the average developer today who focuses on maximising the ratio of rooms to floor area.

No, the Royal Crescent, Circus and Queen's Square were all premium property from the start, and the interiors reflect that, too. The comment about the backs is just a reflection that the 'rules' that each builder had to work to didn't cover the rear elevation and this is also the bit most altered over time, so you get all sorts going on. It's the second and third order stuff that makes up most of the background of Bath that is pretty mainly because the stone is a nice colour and the fronts were designed as set pieces when the land was divided up into leasehold building plots. Once you are through the front door they are just the same as any other terraced house: front room; back room; stairs in the back corner; repeat. And a lot of them are really thrown together. You get almost exactly the same thing in Islington, it's just built of brick instead of stone.

For my personal preference, Bath is a bit prissy and I prefer the more vigorous clash of different styles of Bristol.

PRISSY!!!!!

The bloody cheek of it!

focuszing723

Bristol in places is a right mess, a mix mash of too much concrete pouring.

focuszing723

PRISSY!

Pross

focuszing723 said:

Bristol in places is a right mess, a mix mash of too much concrete pouring.

It's almost as though someone bombed the cr@p out of it and the gaps were rebuilt quickly at the height the RC building era.

Pross

I seem to recall RJS particularly likes this Bristolian building. Interesting renovation.

rjsterry

I mean if you want to live in Jane Austen World, it's great. It's just like so many places that had a heyday and then not much else happened: it feels like it's an exhibit rather than a city.

Things that don't change die.