Watchdog calls for good design to be put before quick profit

Posted by Ananurhing

Sat, 01 Dec 2007 16:06:28 GMT

Well done and well said Malcolm Fraser.

My goodness. Someone close to govt. willing to take a principled stance!

Posted by TimW1234, Ottawa, Canada

Sat, 01 Dec 2007 15:32:38 GMT

Boy Wonder

My hand is up.

Some of the monstrosities built in Canada in the past are beyond comment.

But......social planning councils and builders and architects have smartened up and realise that an architecturally pleasing building with a sense of aesthetics will attract more business and can be built economically AND with environmental features such as roof gardens, orientation north-south in cold climates, and features such as recycled materials in the fabric of the building, retaining established trees on the land, low-flow plumbing features, high-efficient lighting such as compact fluorescent bulbs, etc. etc.

Where there is a will, there is a way.

Posted by Ard Righ, The Rock of Edinburgh

Sat, 01 Dec 2007 10:34:33 GMT

Part of the solution begins with how students of architecture are taught. A more practical side to this should be three compulsory years in construction and maintaining traditional buildings, yielding the form and context of where our architecture has arisen from and why, culturing respect. However this is a subject beyond the purposes of this letter.
A more immediate approach to avoid further contextual deterioration involves a more Scandinavian approach. Build within the context utilising as many local materials or don’t build at all. As Scotland inhabits approximately 55-61 Degrees due North, the aspect for the most daylight in streets and the interior of buildings is defined by midwinter noon sun. This gives wide streets and low buildings, very characteristic of villages and towns and cities all around the further parts of the northern hemisphere. As any native of Scotland will know, just how long and arduous winters can be and how unforgiving and fierce the elements are for our abodes.
Our new architecture must be based firmly within the context and harmony of tradition. As many local materials as possible should be used, tipping our hats to the past, utilising the advantages and advancements of the present and stepping confidently into the future. This is progression. Not vapid fashions, egos or trends as unstable, uneconomical architecture. It is time to abandon architecture for architects and create architecture for the people.

Posted by Ard Righ, The Rock of Edinburgh

Sat, 01 Dec 2007 10:34:01 GMT

This letter was drafted to the parliament, feel free to take points or the whole text and send it to them in letter from.

Dear Sirs,
This letter is regarding the remit for planning protocol. Principally objecting to gross aberrations in the architectural continuity of old towns and areas, largely applicable for Scotland as a whole, especially rural areas.
Have we come this far with some superb buildings and towns in qualified aspect, given the build from nearby quarries, to loose all context of progression? Seemingly, since the 1940’s and 50’s we have.
Architects and planners cannot ignore thousands of years of cumulative knowledge, which would result in natural buildings with good aspect, blending aesthetic, longevity and some adaptability throughout generations. We do not have this, as this knowledge has mostly been tossed asunder in favour of such attitudes as “I know better”, “more daring” and “oooh how 2007” all of which are valid in an artists theme park or an industrial area (?), but absolutely unacceptable in areas of long architectural history, national wealth, cultural value and residence.
This increasing amount of unfettered egos, masquerading as modernist architects, blowing each others trumpets and slapping each others backs as some paltry justification for the recent abandoning of the organic nature of progression, is destroying the continuity of our landscape and our older towns. Fashion in architecture has, in the last generation continually and consistently proved to look awful in a very short space of time after, or even on completion, despite mass opposition. These aberrations are typically praised by architects only, left as mistakes of modernity, wearing down the populace daily, requiring huge maintenance bills rapidly and eventually being demolished in a period of less than a lifetime. I can think of few processes that are more detrimental to the environment and the inhabiting populace as this.

Posted by Boy Wonder

Sat, 01 Dec 2007 08:02:23 GMT

Hands up who didn't know this already!!!