Re: Re: RIAI Gold Medal 2001-2003
As for your U.I quip- you do know that the name has nothing to do with the location and everything to do with the function . . .
ctesiphon, I think I understand that distinction, in the same way that I have long suspected that ‘Fire stations’ are the places where they keep the fire engines, not the places that go on fire.
. . . but since we’re on the subject of the ‘Urban Institute’ I would suggest that the design of the building itself confuses these issues in adopting forms and devices that would perhaps make sense in a confined urban context when in fact the building is located on the edge of a field in a suburban context (at best).
This building makes no sense to me:
With light available on all sides, what are the three rooftop ‘light boxes’ for?
Why is the facade facing the park land and the pedestrian link from the main Belfied campus so bleak?
Apart from being a curious pre-echo of Grafton’s Italian job, how did this building, which has weathered particularly badly, make it onto the gold medal shortlist?
â€˜Architectureâ€™ as a creative, cultural act needs representation in this place.
I fully agree with that, but my point is that urban in-fill schemes of the quality and degree of difficulty of ‘Coppinger Court’, for example, are architecture too and arguably a much more valuable form of of architecture than the little arty numbers like ‘The Urban Institute’, for example.