Originally Posted by
Doris Mousdale
All your points are excuses for a very boring building.
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough... architects are often criticised for designing interesting buildings. Only to be then criticised for designing dull ones.
New designs tend to use innovative (untried and untested) details and building materials - as a consequence they tend to cost more per se (ask any builder).
They need more (costly) design development. They tend to give the client more risk of building failure. They are more difficulties in the planning system (ask any planner).
The more you repeat something the simpler it gets - there's a whole industry out there geared to produce the same - over and over, because it's cheap and therefore it gets done.
To develop an 'interesting' kit of parts requires big investment and a long production run to make it worthwhile.
We don't do it. Sweden does - and not just furniture... boklok. The UK is now in the situation were even the humdrum is more expensive and less do-able.
div>
A question of priorities. Sometimes, people just want run-of-the-mill. They want tried and tested. They want a repeat prescription.
In this case no doubt the priority was to get a difficult job done effectively (encouraging small businesses in a deprived area). A job that clients and society says are more important than pretty or interesting architecture.
Some people think they deserve employment opportunities ahead of architects' 'messing about with design'. They would be right.
As I say sometimes architects can't win, sometimes they must lose.
Bookmarks