Building Soul - with Thomas Heatherwick.

[SteamyTea]

Interesting listen, not really sure what his conclusion was.

"Listen to me" I think.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001r1b2

 

 

[Adrian Walker]

2 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

Interesting listen, not really sure what his conclusion was.

"Listen to me" I think.

 

 

 

 

I have listened to them all.  His conclusion is that planning needs to change, but he's not sure in what way. Buildings do have souls and that is NOT how they look from the outside. Architecture is not just about how something looks, and IMHO that is the least important aspect, for homes it's more about its function and the niceness (health and happiness) to live in and live with.

 

[SteamyTea]

1 minute ago, Adrian Walker said:

His conclusion is that planning needs to change

Well that is a forgone conclusion, as he said (or was it someone else), you deal with a lot of people that have different ideas.  Don't think ecologists where mentioned, they want nothing built anywhere.

 

I am not sure that he is really the person to be talking about normal architecture.

 

 

 

 

[Adrian Walker]

36 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

Well that is a forgone conclusion, as he said (or was it someone else), you deal with a lot of people that have different ideas.  Don't think ecologists where mentioned, they want nothing built anywhere.

 

I am not sure that he is really the person to be talking about normal architecture.

 

 

 

 

That's just architects spending other people's money.

[SteamyTea]

2 minutes ago, Adrian Walker said:

That's just architects spending other people's money.

Yes.  He touched on the price of building houses, said that the nice ones cost more then the nasty ones 100 years ago.  Used that as justification to build expensive houses, ones that will last 1000 years.

 

Edited October 22, 2023 by SteamyTea

[Gus Potter]

5 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

Interesting listen, not really sure what his conclusion was.

Thanks @SteamyTea will give this a listen.

[saveasteading]

17 hours ago, Adrian Walker said:

That's just architects spending other people's money

It was summarised in 3 newspaper articles.

I further summarise.

 

He's very good, but we are all nearly all Philistines. A very few clients appreciate how good he is and are prepared to spend the money.

 

Simple and efficient is bad. Fiddly and complex is good.

 

Money .....ahhh I don't remember that being mentioned as his concern.

 

 

[SimonD]

18 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

Interesting listen, not really sure what his conclusion was.

"Listen to me" I think.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001r1b2

 

 

 

I scanned the articles rather than listened. It seems we repeat this same circle every so often with someone from the architectural world making the same complaint. Once upon a time it was Prince Charles complaining about the Southbank and city planning me thinks.

 

I totally agree that a lot of what is being built is horrible, especially the monoculture estates being thrown up merely to maximise the profits of large developers while screwing the customers. I'm sure that being an architect designing these things must be soul destroying.

 

14 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

Simple and efficient is bad. Fiddly and complex is good.

 

Shame it's often missed that simple and efficient can also be highly aesthetic, but can also be more difficult to design as it's about more subtle relationship and proportion rather than a grand statement.

[SteamyTea]

15 minutes ago, SimonD said:

Shame it's often missed that simple and efficient can also be highly aesthetic, but can also be more difficult to design as it's about more subtle relationship and proportion rather than a grand statement.

I agree with you there.

As a cheap work around, why don't designers project an image of their proposal onto a screen at the back of the plot.

I know virtual reality is meant to do with, but it is still very artificial and depends on the accuracy of the initial plot survey.

[saveasteading]

26 minutes ago, SimonD said:

being an architect designing these things must be soul destroying

I've met them. Technicians cut and pasting the maximum number of standard boxes into the available space. 

Planners and locals can comment ( free design checks) on design errors such as no ambulance access or bin spaces, or that tree they hadn't noticed etc.

 

I don't think the soul was there  to be destroyed. I think the fee may have been very low.

[saveasteading]

17 hours ago, Adrian Walker said:

That's just architects spending other people's money

In many cases it was once our money, being spent by corporations (banks, universities, public buildings) on a monument to themselves.