Alan Dunlop's comments
If you recall, when the Holl building opened, the GSA were effusive in their praise and lauded the building and the architect. Now it has become the reason not to build a new building.
Other views are that it has to be replicated "brick by brick" because there is no architect capable of living up to Mackintosh alive today, do we really believe that? If so, it's a desperate reflection of the profession and architects worldwide, for it seems to damn three generations of the profession, which for me is an Architecture of Despair.
I did not know that for I've never posted a comment anonymously, on any website that was critical of anyone's opinion without having the courage to add my name.
To answer your question, and take you initial comment more seriously than it deserves. My opinion on what Mackintosh would do is not a consequence of having a hot line to the ever after but instead is based on a study of his writing, sketchbooks, letters to Francis Newbery and his lectures. Particularly his tour of Italy and his contribution to the debate surrounding the rebuilding of St Mark's Campanile in 1902.
Oh, Herbert has just chipped in and reminded me not to engage with flâneur types that don't give their names. He also wonders what's with the "tinder" image? "that seems a bit, well......... creepy"
Sure, he's just asked me what is it with people who post their opinion anonymously and to tell them it's the Mac, not the Mack. When you bring in the k, you're starting on kintosh, which really is bizarre.
Sorry Chris, as a Scot and Glaswegian that's probably the most bizarre comment posted so far.
A recent vox pop conducted by a national newspaper concluded that to most Scots, Hampden Park, the national football stadium, was more important.
It's heartening that Charlie Hussey, honorary professor and lecturerer at the Mackintosh School is the first from the Glasgow School of Art to break cover and offer an opinion.
However. like Dresden, Warsaw, Barcelona Pavilion and even Neues, comparing Mackintosh's GSA, a working art school, with Japanese temples and shrines is also spurious. Traditional temples and shrines in Japan were made from wood, so more likely to be open to destruction or destroyed by fire. Therefore, it's no surprise that the Japanese philosophical attitude to the rebuilding of these historic buildings should be that it is the "preservation of the idea that is important"
Also, just as significantly, we are not Japanese.
I have been a frequent visitor to mainland China and have been guided around many reconstructed temples and other traditional buildings, which were demolished during the cultural revolution or destroyed by the Japanese.
The reconstruction looks authentic, it's all very well done but you know it's a lie.
A striking school Paul, not sure about the canopies for outdoor learning but a very interesting building nonetheless.
A great, well written and trenchant piece Robin.
"Despite its shapely roof, which looms up out of the hillside like something from the Teletubbies," .....mmm, indeed
The Council's End of Project Review Report on DG One from 2008 makes very interesting reading: This is just part of it:
3.15 Conclusion 3.15.1
The project performed well against cost targets.
The Design and Build model successfully ‘capped’ the cost of the project, and transferred the risk of construction related cost increases to the Contractor.
The total cost of f 12.67m represented good value for money.
National building cost indices based on a rate per square metre of floor area for leisure and sports facilities including swimming pools are some 17% higher than that obtained for the Leisure Complex.
Information provided by sport scotland also indicated that the cost of DG One compared favourably with that of a similar major leisure facility completed recently by another Scottish local authority.
5.42 Conclusions - Proiect Strengths
This review has highlighted strengths and weaknesses of various aspects of the project, but in a number of respects this was a very successful project.
Strengths identified include:- * DG One, the end product, met quality requirements and public expectations.
The cost of the f 12.67m project was kept within budget. Clear Project Brief and Contract restricted any scope for dispute over design details and transferred an appropriate level of risk to the Contractor.
Good range of Council representatives on the Board, forming a team with a common focus and a shared commitment to deliver a high quality facility for the Council. Specialist skills and knowledge helped to produce strong applications for external funding which attracted the largest Lottery and ERDF grants ever secured by the Council.
Efficient financial controls and monitoring, as verified by recent EU audits. Full engagement and support from Council services, including Finance, Planning and Environment, and Combined Services. In-house project management ensured appropriate direct ‘ownership’ of the project.
PRINCE2 was used and core groups of staff also met regularly to ensure
Client Kontractor issues were addressed and resolved quickly. Open and transparent approach - regular progress reports to Members and through communication with the press and the public. No significant Health and Safety issues occurred during project.
Project design demonstrates Council’s commitment to Sustainability, for example through the inclusion of a number of energy conservation measures in the project design.
Project design also illustrated Council’s commitment to Equality and Accessibility, for example through the input of the Disability Access Forum to the design of the facility