Comment on: Ian Martin: 'Let’s renationalise air'
Ian Martin's Guardian article was great. MIPIM is coming up which I attended on numerous occasions, thankfully no more as the thought of it makes me shudder. I have a strong sense that a significant proportion of the profession has been swallowed whole by the property industry. Maybe that's always been the case and I'm being naive, buts its very depressing.
Ken's comments are naive and confused to say the least. The emergence of the "Starchitect" is a symptom of wider economic and social factors, such as globalization. It has nothing to do with the alleged arrogance or humility of certain individuals and the overcoming of "starchitecture" will take a little more than preaching to the converted. Whatever their faults I simply don't believe that top architects act in a disrespectful way to the extremely high calibre (and often equally well known) engineers they choose to work with. And as for arrogance........its irrelavent if you're good. I'm sure none of Wren, Schinkel, Lutyens, Corb or Mies were wilting flowers.
I agree Alan, and I like your in principle idea of doing a new library by a modern architect. Trouble is - and this might sound conservative - who? I don't think there's anyone out there who'd be up to it today.
Comment on: Obituary: Kathryn Findlay (1953-2014)
Very sad indeed to have heard about the death of Kathryn Findlay. She was a very talented architect as well as a warm and generous person, always complimentary about other people's work and modest about her own, despite having made some excellent buildings. She was one of rare breed who, often at considerable cost to the progress of their careers, try to do something unique and different. In this she succeeded.
Comment on: Now Liverpool is the place to be
Sorry, as a scouser I don't like knocking Liverpool, but I can't agree with Paul's article, nor with the comment above. The Museum of Liverpool might be shiny and new and, as a facility, a welcome addition to the city, but it's fifth rate architecture will look incredibly dated and tired very soon. In my view, the Three Graces are very good, not necessarily outstanding, buildings in their own right, but from an urban point pint of view, they make a brilliant ensemble, having something of the scale and feel of an American city, reminding Liverpudlians of their city’s symbiotic relationship with the United States in the 19th and 20th centuries. The Museum, not only disregards this through its failure to relate visually or contextually (it surely should have taken the form of an urban block like every other significant building around it), it obliterates the relationship between the three graces, working in tandem with its fellow runt, the atrocious ferry terminal, to intrude upon the view from the river, and to completely block the view from the Albert Dock. The only thing, from an architectural point of view, that can be said in the museum’s favour is that it manages to be slightly better than the abominable black buildings by the consistently awful Broadway Malyan which destroy what remains of the view between the Albert and the Pierhead. Liverpool deserves better than the constant appointment of mediocre commercial practices to design its prominent monuments. To be allowing these people to become the heirs of John Wood, Harvey Londsdale Elmes, Thomas Rickman, Peter Ellis, Jesse Hartley, Edwin Lutyens, Giles Gilbert Scott and others who have graced the city with genuine world class architecture, displays a shocking level of architectural illiteracy the part of those responsible for commissioning these atrocities. Sean Griffiths