Nice buildings

rjsterry said:

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.

Stamford is the worst example of this.

Just feels odd.

The places getting knocked down are the concrete eyesores though, after tens of years not hundreds.

rjsterry said:

Only because in the last 30 years or so we have chosen to label old as beautiful. The idea of conservation areas and preserving some supposed aesthetic high point is relatively recent. For most of the rest of history, buildings were only kept if they served a purpose. The current fashion for idolising old buildings is just a reaction to the previous fashion for idolising modernity, which was itself a reaction against Victorian and Edwardian ideas of what made good buildings.

I honestly don't think so. In a hundred time people will derive just as much pleasure from the design and a sense of history, also places akin to Bath will continue to be well needed tourist traps. I doubt many will flock to Milton Keynes!

Dutch houses - massive windows.

thistle_(mbnw) said:

First.Aspect said:

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

I prefer the industrial version: https://www.flickr.com/photos/52470375@N06/49929151818
Inside is pretty nice but I can't find any pictures. I think they were a bit funny about us taking pictures in there: of the equipment I can understand but the preserved decor is something to shout about.

Bit fascist looking for me.

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

thistle_(mbnw) said:

First.Aspect said:

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

I prefer the industrial version: https://www.flickr.com/photos/52470375@N06/49929151818
Inside is pretty nice but I can't find any pictures. I think they were a bit funny about us taking pictures in there: of the equipment I can understand but the preserved decor is something to shout about.

Bit fascist looking for me.

Nah. Take it back, don't let them steal it.

Some of that industrial stuff is fantastic. If you ever see the inside of a Victorian pumping station or anything like that, you wonder at where all the money came from.

I think that probably goes a little way to adding some weight to the argument that older = nicer/better. There do seem to be many examples of Victorian stuff being built to a design rather than to a budget (if that makes sense). The Natural History Museum being an example that springs to mind.

Although hardly a tourist trap (and arguably not a "building", the sewers beneath London (Bazelgette?) are still functioning now that they are serving many many more people and businesses than were there at the time of their building - either magnificent foresight or magnificent design (or a bit of both) but either way, probably way outside of any budget that would be agreed to do an equivalent job nowadays.

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

thistle_(mbnw) said:

First.Aspect said:

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

I prefer the industrial version: https://www.flickr.com/photos/52470375@N06/49929151818
Inside is pretty nice but I can't find any pictures. I think they were a bit funny about us taking pictures in there: of the equipment I can understand but the preserved decor is something to shout about.

Bit fascist looking for me.

Nah. Take it back, don't let them steal it.

Some of that industrial stuff is fantastic. If you ever see the inside of a Victorian pumping station or anything like that, you wonder at where all the money came from.

even the outside of those pumping stations is a statement

laurentian said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

thistle_(mbnw) said:

First.Aspect said:

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

I prefer the industrial version: https://www.flickr.com/photos/52470375@N06/49929151818
Inside is pretty nice but I can't find any pictures. I think they were a bit funny about us taking pictures in there: of the equipment I can understand but the preserved decor is something to shout about.

Bit fascist looking for me.

Nah. Take it back, don't let them steal it.

Some of that industrial stuff is fantastic. If you ever see the inside of a Victorian pumping station or anything like that, you wonder at where all the money came from.

I think that probably goes a little way to adding some weight to the argument that older = nicer/better. There do seem to be many examples of Victorian stuff being built to a design rather than to a budget (if that makes sense). The Natural History Museum being an example that springs to mind.

Although hardly a tourist trap (and arguably not a "building", the sewers beneath London (Bazelgette?) are still functioning now that they are serving many many more people and businesses than were there at the time of their building - either magnificent foresight or magnificent design (or a bit of both) but either way, probably way outside of any budget that would be agreed to do an equivalent job nowadays.

Everyone forgets about the cost wrangles after the thing is built. Wren famously had endless disputes with the funders of St Paul's Cathedral. History is full of building projects that never happened or were drastically scaled back because the client's tastes didn't match their wallet.

I like Georgian architecture, especially the country houses and more grand town houses but having worked in a few converted town houses in Bristol they don't really work practically especially when listed status minimises the opportunity for them to be modernised internally.

The result of giving so many of the buildings protection is that, as RJS says, they stop being of use and therefore end up becoming unused and falling into disrepair. I know of Grade 1 listed buildings that have become ruins because it has become impractical to renovate.

darkhairedlord said:

thistle_(mbnw) said:

First.Aspect said:

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

I prefer the industrial version: https://www.flickr.com/photos/52470375@N06/49929151818
Inside is pretty nice but I can't find any pictures. I think they were a bit funny about us taking pictures in there: of the equipment I can understand but the preserved decor is something to shout about.

It's a bit trumpton.. I much prefer the factory in chigley.

Let me get this right: fascist.. Trumpton... surely just coincidence?

darkhairedlord said:

thistle_(mbnw) said:

First.Aspect said:

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

I prefer the industrial version: https://www.flickr.com/photos/52470375@N06/49929151818
Inside is pretty nice but I can't find any pictures. I think they were a bit funny about us taking pictures in there: of the equipment I can understand but the preserved decor is something to shout about.

It's a bit trumpton.. I much prefer the factory in chigley.

I quie like the look of that. Some nice modernist touches and bold use of colour.

focuszing723 said:

Burj Khalifa. I wouldn't want to live in it or it's shadow, but as an engineering feat it is pretty impressive.

What a waste of a high view.

“As you can see, Dubai is built on a desert, so you can mainly see.....sand”

First.Aspect said:

I think that about London and New York, to be fair. All you can see is, well, London and New York.

The Khalifa is absolutely gopping though, albeit not as bad as this:

That is a bloody eyesore. It does seem unfair a wacky architect designs some statement for whoever and the people who live/work there have to put up with it.

That explain it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryugyong_Hotel

It's some kind of build length for not much reward.