In all the column inches about Magna, has anybody asked the question about what this set of structures has got to do with architecture?
Admittedly the building was impressive, but the old steelworks was built during the First World War, and it is this structure that one is responding to. Incidentally, it was more impressive when it was a working steelworks - when the heat, flames and the sparks were real and not some kind of Disney-fied (and undignified) 'experience'.
Even as an enjoyable 'visitor attraction' it is pushing it. I went there with my daughter expecting to have a full day's visit, but within four hours we had seen everything and had had a meal (in an ugly inflatable internal marquee).
As usual, many of the 'interactive events' weren't working, queues for those that were were thus longer and there was very little substance to them anyway.
The biggest thumbs-up was the very well designed and stocked adventure playground. . .
which happens to be outside.
As a science adventure park the experience taught absolutely nothing about science - it was a giant mix of a heritage museum (with an embarrassing son et lumiere 'show') and a play area. I thought that 'edu-tainment' died with the Dome.
The lighting designer rightfully deserves 10 out of 10; the structural engineer eight, the installation curator four, the caterer two; and the architects. . .
er, what exactly did they do?
Tony Worthington, received on the AJ discussion forum