Re: Re: Convention centre
I’m tired of this “it’s better than what’s there” argument, what is arround it is pretty ugly, granted, but that’s like comparing it to the ugly person who hangs out with uglier pople to make themselves look good. While I cannot think of a good convention centre off the top of my head but it is essentially a place of gathering, like an auditorium, or a stadium, and I’m sure we can muster up a few god examples of those. Again I don’t buy the it’s beter than other version of its type argument, that dosen’t qualify it as good.
“how it fails relative to its function”
Please do not insult yourself or me by suggesting that it is enough that it fulfills its function, I thought architectural discourse had moved past that.
OK I’ll conceed gunter his argument above, he’s obviously done his research, but please look at the examples gunter has given, and then look at our NCC, it is the runt of the litter, the reject, the poorest example of that type of thing. OK, maybe it was worth trying, if only to show that it dosen’t work. But it should have stayed on the model shelf in the office never to be let out. The proportions are wrong, the scale (of the drum) is wrong. Gunter there is no point saying “if” it works, have you been down there latley, I think there is enough of it there to make a judgment now.
I have already made the argument about scale in its wider “context”.
I never disputed that it was “iconic”, or “striking” or “monumental” or even “interesting” but it can be all these things and that still dosen’t make it good.
My point is that it is bad architecture and that it is in the midst of worse architecture dosen’t or shouldn’t make that OK, especially when it is so fucking big.