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

What other Architecutural/Construction publication openly criticises buildings in this way? Are we to highlight terrible architecture by observing a lack of championing certain buildings within the architectural press? From some of the posts on here I would assume some Architects would prefer their carbuncle to go inconspicuously unnoticed, but poor architecture which this is should be named and shamed. Without criticism how can Carbuncles like this be avoided in the future?

The Carbuncle Cup clearly has a place in Architecture, the fact that so many people have written defensive comments proves this, as presumably intended by its creators this award it will always divide opinion.

Many people seem to be constantly criticising BD's journalism, if you don't like it no one is forcing you to read it. Agreed that for example you can't read just one newspaper, a spread of newspapers needs to be read to form a balanced and informed opinion about current affairs, the same applies to the Architectural press, just like Architecture where there are good and bad buildings, the same applies to the Architectural press, everything is judged against its peers, and the Cutty Sark should now be judged a failure amongst its own

As for asking for BD to always write positive articles about Architecture, that is plainly ridiculous, as with the world not everything is positive and things need to be highlighted as with the Cutty Sark to learn from mistakes and improve in the future, clearly in this case budget did not allow what was shown in the original 3Dimensional renders, the SS Great Britain in Bristol has a glass roof, executed much more successfully than the Cutty Sarks.

http://www.guide2bristol.com/uploads/news/large/150711093117--ss%20Great%20Britain%20goes%20Overboard%20for%20Bristol%20Harbour%20Festival.jpg

it's not as it Grimshaw had to invent anything new here, if indeed the roof was even required?? The supports which are apparently needed to preserve the structural integrity of the CUtty Sark could still have been used to hold the ship up creating an amazing public space underneath, allowing those who want to experience the Cutty Sark without paying the entrance fee to do so, and still have fee paying visitors entering the ship above (presumably at a lesser cost than the current fee due to the building being cheaper!). There was know need for a museum experience, the Cutty Sark was a experience in it's own right, I can only say I am glad to have visited it before Grimshaw intervened!

Your details

Cancel