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”
I think you might have misunderstood me on this point; I wasn’t implying that its function excused ugliness, rather, that ugliness, in the sense of a certain awkwardness and brutality, helped express its function and that there was a virtue in that; further, I don’t think that its surroundings excuse a poor building, but, rather, that a certain corporate monumentality is normal to dockland reclamations and therefore, in this case, help establish a sense of this place. I think, while not beautiful in a lyrical sense, it is impressive, muscular, honest and still playful.