Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

Well Zecks, it quite clearly is beyond your limited intelligence so let me recap for you. We were arguing that the Bartlett lacks the practical skills necessary that Architectural practices needs. This was subsequently supported by four fifths of students and employers in a separate article/RIBA appointments survey only a few days ago blowing your argument that these skills were not necessary at undergrad level out of the water.

Now moving on, these drawings are real architecture as they contain buildings. Little of the Bartlett drawings contain buildings they are either conceptual, fragmented buildings or most often nothing about buildings whatsoever. For me architecture means buildings otherwise you might as well go of and study art and give the course the title architecture which seems to be what they do at the Bartlett. This alone would not be a problem if they just did what they wanted to do, but the fact that they believe themselves to be superior and try to impose their discredited architectual method on all other schools of architecture as what all students must do at undergrad level is beyond arrogance and is not wanted. Many schools out there are doing far better work that the Bartlett both presentation wise and with ideas and actually being able to produce a building such as the school above. There are of course the signs of the Bartlett's overbearing nature to be seen here of course that of the moody & miserable scene's 'WHAT' has picked up upon otherwiae known as dystopia which is all the Bartlett can churn out presentationwise that is capable of meeting any standard, but they fail to ever move past dystopia. In other words the Bartlett really do need to pull their head in, there not all that and have no physical work models or built architecture to justify that they are all that.

Your details

Cancel