I like Victorian architecture, even at its most gothic horror spender. (Too many Hammer horror films…) and that is one reason that I love this area.
Saying that, I’m not a stick in the mud purest. I also like ‘modern’ (is that really the best term to use?) buildings, when they are suited to surroundings.
Please note the museum of slavery on Liverpool waterfront; which not only looks like two letterboxes badly stacked, but it leaks water, does not in anyway sit comfortably next to the Liver Building and the other two graces, and cost a bloody fortune.
When I saw the passed design for our prom, I really liked the drawings of what could have been a striking structure. I liked its 1960’s vision of the future. Like something from Thunderbirds or that fantastic Frank Lloyd Wright inspired house in Hitchcock’s film North by North West, or Cresswell’s Biscuit factory from Chiggly. (haha, no ones going to get that obscure reference.).
I could have lived with that quite happily.
I agree with BMD. Just because it doesn’t fit into the spectrum of classical, pre war concept it doesn’t have to be regarded as bad design. Sadly, when something like this appears it’s deemed as modern rubbish. I’m sorry, but that’s the designer’s fault, not the fact that modern can’t be appealing.
Sadly, now it looks like the kind of crap that sprung up during Soviet administration. The slab sides add to this.
What I can’t understand is this:
When it became obvious that the plans were not going to be followed, why wasn’t it put before the public again for re-design? Or am I missing something?
When I was a car sprayer, and asked to respray a car black for a customer I wouldn’t tell my boss that it was too expensive and ask to do it in brown. Regardless of his decision, I would ask the owner. He is paying for it.
Well, we were the owners and paying towards it. Were we asked?