Printable View
Something you do all too well and with about the same degree of understanding. On the whole, the conversation about avatars and glasses was more useful and more interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
Back to Ged's point; I would ask why do we think buildings that represent power, wealth and exclusion are more worthwhile? Come on, it's a leading question - fill your political boots!
Reckon them old buildings are just easy on the eye. The size and majesty of something like St Georges Hall is just about right.Quote:
Originally Posted by petromax
This building has a lot of those qualities (and some more others), but is it bad just because it's glass and steel and modern?Quote:
Originally Posted by pablo42
http://www.flickr.com/photos/40936407@N07/4096006418/
Agree - I appreciate the buildings for what they are rather than what they represent. The design and construction techniques used before the availability of modern cranes is beyond belief - the skills of the architects and building engineers is to be marvelled at.Quote:
Originally Posted by pablo42
The people who funded them and where their money came from is another matter.
When the pyramids were built thousands of slaves suffered and died for the glorification of the pharoahs. The history behind them is tragic but they are still marvellous edifices.
I don't think so. I like the new buildings, not all of them, but certainly some. I like Liverpool 1 and the new World Museum.Quote:
Originally Posted by petromax
The old buildings are nice to look at, these new ones are HORRIBLE :disgust:
Plus the tourist like the old buildings.
Far too much glass in the new, ugly, horrible one's that have ruined our skyline.
Roman's used slaves to build roads, so sell your car and walk on the side.
Well Kevin, I couldn't care less where the money come from. It's there and that's it. Most fortunes were built on some type of misery.Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin
But people are not as selective about old buildings. Take Josephine House - a nondescript pile if ever I saw one - a bit like a council house with fake stone cladding, but plenty here bemoan its passing, just because it's old?Quote:
Originally Posted by pablo42
The proposed replacement is definitely above average - not a star in the making - but it fronts up to the pavement line like all good city buildings should and complements the massing and scale of the two Phils on opposing corners. You could say it 'fits in'; decidedly better than what it replaces, but because it's new, albeit modest, most dislike it on principle?
In other words, you have no brains and a know-it-all to boot. Bad combination. Sad but true.Quote:
Originally Posted by petromax
Beetham West and Alex are nice. The problem with Liverpool is that few post WW2 buildings have been any good.Quote:
Originally Posted by pablo42
What makes a good building is proportion, new or old. St. Georges Hall has it.Quote:
Originally Posted by pablo42
That is a a silly thing to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike
No it is not, its my opinion. Just cause I dont agree with you it dont make it silly. Did I say your replies where silly? No I did not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
So dont go snapping because you dont agree. Im sorry I did not realise we had to have your opinion.
I say it as it is ( to use your words ) Its called freedom of speech, its a forum , get over it.
Carry on your moaning, put your links up, paste 4 quotes every post. Im bored of you and you petty comments.
I have been impressed by others arguements for and against old buildings, then as per use you have to stand above all with you high and mighty ways.
Give it a rest will you, im bored silly of you:PDT_Xtremez_12:
Another thread i cant be arsed with now, seems the forum is becoming a pain due to you. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ will be my reply to all you say from now on.
We were expressing our own opinions about old buildings and why we like them or otherwise; not regurgitating other people's half-understood theories as 'proof' of some half-baked notion or other, without even doing us the courtesy of summarising or drawing out the particular point you want to make. Why don't you go and have a lie down [sic].Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
Does that mean that buildings have no moral obligation? Developers are very often criticised for 'raping' the city, tearing down much-loved 'jewels', all and only for profit and gain. Do we really mean it's ok to savage the environment as long as the design is 'easy on the eye'? I think we do.Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin