Discussion
Funkycoldribena said:
GnuBee said:
I'd not be surprised if Flint House gets the award - fantastic "thing". The transition through the external facing was superb, the smaller part being an echo of the main structure really worked, then there was the stream, the use of the roof space etc.
Bloody hell,I thought it was just Kev McLeod that talked this sort of twaddle,you'll be telling us it's a fusion of old and new next...I'm afraid that even if I win £71m tonight, there wasn't one house on there I'd be remotely interested in owning. Nothing floated my boat about any of them, and as for Rothschild furnishing the flint place with all the relic castoffs from the big house, well, talk about, er, juxtaposition! Along with the 1960s Farrow & Ball colour scheme, it looked awful.
CAPP0 said:
Don't forget to throw in a juxtaposition or two.
I'm afraid that even if I win £71m tonight, there wasn't one house on there I'd be remotely interested in owning. Nothing floated my boat about any of them, and as for Rothschild furnishing the flint place with all the relic castoffs from the big house, well, talk about, er, juxtaposition! Along with the 1960s Farrow & Ball colour scheme, it looked awful.
I guess the obvious question is what would you buy with the £71m?I'm afraid that even if I win £71m tonight, there wasn't one house on there I'd be remotely interested in owning. Nothing floated my boat about any of them, and as for Rothschild furnishing the flint place with all the relic castoffs from the big house, well, talk about, er, juxtaposition! Along with the 1960s Farrow & Ball colour scheme, it looked awful.
Rothschild's personal taste in interiors is pretty much what you may expect given his "history" - if the building wins it'll do it on the merit of the architecture and not the colour and furnishing choices of it's owner.
At least the houses provoke some kind of reaction - hate/love is much better than "meh".
SydneyBridge said:
love the flint house, but bet there were no money problems or budget overruns- or pregnancies...
which is why I was disappointed and surprised the Irish house didn't get through, ingenuity on a tight budget, true originality, some outstanding architectural touches to end productAdam B said:
which is why I was disappointed and surprised the Irish house didn't get through, ingenuity on a tight budget, true originality, some outstanding architectural touches to end product
This, although looking again, I did wonder how he achieved it for the money, given all the structural work etc on the fabric of the containers themselves.Adam B said:
which is why I was disappointed and surprised the Irish house didn't get through, ingenuity on a tight budget, true originality, some outstanding architectural touches to end product
agree- the flint house was amazing but obviously money no object- did they say it took 4 or 6 men 8 months to do the flint walls? - something like that?I guess in award shows- no credit is given for a low spend
The idea is to find the best house architecturally speaking - not the best 'value for money'. So doing well on a small budget, being very utilitarian or even just being a nice place to live probably doesn't count.
That said, I really didn't like the Flint house. Thought the proportions were wrong and hated the flint cladding. The 'grotto' looked naff and I thought the interior furnishings really didn't suit the modern style of the house (although they were doubtless worth a fortune). They didn't really show enough of the inside to be able to make a judgement on whether or not ithe interior layout was good. For sure it was well built and probably had design features that are going to appeal to architects on a technical level though.
The first house (that looked a bit like a barn) reminded me a lot of one they did on GD several years back, in France.
Didn't really like the exterior look of the birdwatching inspired house, though the interior arrangement was interesting.
The shipping container one looked terrific from the outside and was set in a beautiful place but I didn't think it had a particularly great/clever interior. At the end of the day it was two big rectangular boxes placed across each other but with interesting cladding and some eye catching bits tacked on outside.
Thought that the 'triangular roof segments' one was the best. Stunning exterior, stunning interior. Looked practical to live in, had a great landscaped garden and was set in an area of beauty which the large amounts of glass downstairs took advantage of.
That said, I really didn't like the Flint house. Thought the proportions were wrong and hated the flint cladding. The 'grotto' looked naff and I thought the interior furnishings really didn't suit the modern style of the house (although they were doubtless worth a fortune). They didn't really show enough of the inside to be able to make a judgement on whether or not ithe interior layout was good. For sure it was well built and probably had design features that are going to appeal to architects on a technical level though.
The first house (that looked a bit like a barn) reminded me a lot of one they did on GD several years back, in France.
Didn't really like the exterior look of the birdwatching inspired house, though the interior arrangement was interesting.
The shipping container one looked terrific from the outside and was set in a beautiful place but I didn't think it had a particularly great/clever interior. At the end of the day it was two big rectangular boxes placed across each other but with interesting cladding and some eye catching bits tacked on outside.
Thought that the 'triangular roof segments' one was the best. Stunning exterior, stunning interior. Looked practical to live in, had a great landscaped garden and was set in an area of beauty which the large amounts of glass downstairs took advantage of.
SydneyBridge said:
I guess in award shows- no credit is given for a low spend
which is fair enough, but the container box was the only truly original design idea and the most ingenious solution - and that SHOULD be given credit surely?I didn't like anything about the birdwatching-inspired house, assume it only got nominated for its green credentials
I wasn't a fan of the wooden house - it looked like it had been designed by a sauna manufacturer.
Personally I was a massive fan of the flint house and the shipping container home. However, I'd be miffed if my home was short-listed but lost out to the flint house, I mean who has the resources to compete with a Rothschild?? The gradient, both in tone and texture, on the flint/chalk was gorgeous, but who has the budget to dedicate 4 workmen over 8 months to achieve such a thing?!
Personally I was a massive fan of the flint house and the shipping container home. However, I'd be miffed if my home was short-listed but lost out to the flint house, I mean who has the resources to compete with a Rothschild?? The gradient, both in tone and texture, on the flint/chalk was gorgeous, but who has the budget to dedicate 4 workmen over 8 months to achieve such a thing?!
TBH, I thought that each of them was a bit s
t in their own way. I was rather disappointed until I remembered, this isn't really about Britain's best new homes... this is about the The Royal Institute of British Architects coming together for a group wk. Patting each other on the back and putting their hands down each others trousers.
I mean, look at this...
Utter pants ! Only an architect would try and convince you that a double glazed shed like this was worthy of national recognition. Poor Kevin must have been weeping into his beer.
t in their own way. I was rather disappointed until I remembered, this isn't really about Britain's best new homes... this is about the The Royal Institute of British Architects coming together for a group wk. Patting each other on the back and putting their hands down each others trousers.I mean, look at this...
Utter pants ! Only an architect would try and convince you that a double glazed shed like this was worthy of national recognition. Poor Kevin must have been weeping into his beer.
loughran said:
TBH, I thought that each of them was a bit st in their own way. I was rather disappointed until I remembered, this isn't really about Britain's best new homes... this is about the The Royal Institute of British Architects coming together for a group wk. Patting each other on the back and putting their hands down each others trousers.
I mean, look at this...
Utter pants ! Only an architect would try and convince you that a double glazed shed like this was worthy of national recognition. Poor Kevin must have been weeping into his beer.
Agree with you,but at least that one was a bit cosy,the others all seem to be freezing cold car sales rooms to me.t in their own way. I was rather disappointed until I remembered, this isn't really about Britain's best new homes... this is about the The Royal Institute of British Architects coming together for a group wk. Patting each other on the back and putting their hands down each others trousers.I mean, look at this...
Utter pants ! Only an architect would try and convince you that a double glazed shed like this was worthy of national recognition. Poor Kevin must have been weeping into his beer.
loughran said:
TBH, I thought that each of them was a bit st in their own way. I was rather disappointed until I remembered, this isn't really about Britain's best new homes... this is about the The Royal Institute of British Architects coming together for a group wk. Patting each other on the back and putting their hands down each others trousers.
Not disagreeing with you, but I'd be interested in what you'd hold up as a shining example of how to design and build a home these days? Please don't point to some historic pile, my local builder's time machine is down the garage for repairs.t in their own way. I was rather disappointed until I remembered, this isn't really about Britain's best new homes... this is about the The Royal Institute of British Architects coming together for a group wk. Patting each other on the back and putting their hands down each others trousers.The one thing that struck me, having been through the process, was that the main achievement was getting the damn things built in the first place. Every one of those houses would have been rejected out of hand by our local planning department and then rejected again by our parish council. Being a well regarded (and well financed) architect/client carries disproportionate weight in these matters.
loughran said:
TBH, I thought that each of them was a bit st in their own way. I was rather disappointed until I remembered, this isn't really about Britain's best new homes...
No its not, maybe you should be watching that Million Pound Properties on CH4 instead!t in their own way. I was rather disappointed until I remembered, this isn't really about Britain's best new homes... It's not about what YOU would like to live in, as the programme is named it is about "design" and architecture of new homes - I wouldn't particularly want to live in either of the two places I thought should have been nominated, but I admire the thought, imagination and building quality they have.
please do post a link of home design you don't think is "a bit s
t"(although how cliched was that guy with the stupid chin beard and wacky architects glasses?)
Edited by Adam B on Saturday 7th November 16:14
Well we certainly have a rich heritage of houses that are both beautiful and have stood the test of time in this country. I make furniture and have always felt part of a tradition, there are times when I'm accutely aware of how skills that took 500 years to perfect have been forgotten and I can only imagine Louis the 14th's cabinet makers looking down from on high, rolling their eyes and shrugging their shoulders at what passes for good design today.
Do architects these days draw on their own heritage, the thousand years of design and good practice that have gone before ? It appears not... they like to make boxes, in glass and metal. Mies Van der Rohe did that in 1929 and nobody seems to have improved on it in 86 years, other than to perhaps make it airtight.
Here's another box...
Frank Lloyd Wright built Falling Water in 1935 and architect have struggling to catch up ever since.
Here's the RIBA long list showing some of the houses that have yet to be presented in the competion on the telly. There seems to be a common (boxy) theme going on.
https://www.architecture.com/StirlingPrize/Awards2...
Do architects these days draw on their own heritage, the thousand years of design and good practice that have gone before ? It appears not... they like to make boxes, in glass and metal. Mies Van der Rohe did that in 1929 and nobody seems to have improved on it in 86 years, other than to perhaps make it airtight.
Here's another box...
Frank Lloyd Wright built Falling Water in 1935 and architect have struggling to catch up ever since.
Here's the RIBA long list showing some of the houses that have yet to be presented in the competion on the telly. There seems to be a common (boxy) theme going on.
https://www.architecture.com/StirlingPrize/Awards2...
Edited by loughran on Friday 6th November 18:34
Tuna said:
The one thing that struck me, having been through the process, was that the main achievement was getting the damn things built in the first place. Every one of those houses would have been rejected out of hand by our local planning department and then rejected again by our parish council. Being a well regarded (and well financed) architect/client carries disproportionate weight in these matters.
I also wonder about that. Knowing almost nothing about planning makes me plenty qualified to talk about it on the internet, so here goes. I imagine when I have enough money to build my own place, obtaining permission will be very difficult. However, you barely seem to be able to move at the moment without seeing one of the standard developers chucking up orange boxes, separated by a few inches from next door, usually with no attempt to blend the haemorrhage into the surroundings. How is this OK, but I suspect the majority of 'one off' builders would struggle? Near to me there are two new developments, both built on what used to be farm land. The village is made of a light-coloured stone, so these new developments have been built to match - or so you'd think if you were partially sighted. Only the properties that face the main road have been built with nice stone and slate and the accompanying colour schemed facias etc. The rest of the houses are orange brick with stark white windows and doors. How could a planning department think people would be so stupid as to not notice how st this looks?Badly-informed whinge over.
The current planning system is built around the idea of preventing you from doing 'bad things'. The list of 'bad things' grows longer every year - from where the builders park whilst they're building, to which plants you're going to put in your flower bed. Unfortunately, you can't quantify 'good design' in an easy to follow set of guidelines and planners are not allowed to encourage particular solutions for fear of showing favouritism to particular suppliers. At the same time, large scale developers have the money and staff to push through stuff that individuals cannot. As a one off builder, you're regarded with suspicion (unless you are a superstar architect or have a lot of money, funnily enough).
The end result is that conservative designs built down to a spec are inherently favoured over bold, unusual or experimental designs. I don't believe this approach has benefited our street scenes or general housing stock and the experiment of intrusive planning control (over simple building standards control) has not improved architecture in the UK.
Which makes it all the more frustrating when occasional success stories are treated as though they're the result of anything but sheer force of will on the part of the owner.
The end result is that conservative designs built down to a spec are inherently favoured over bold, unusual or experimental designs. I don't believe this approach has benefited our street scenes or general housing stock and the experiment of intrusive planning control (over simple building standards control) has not improved architecture in the UK.
Which makes it all the more frustrating when occasional success stories are treated as though they're the result of anything but sheer force of will on the part of the owner.
loughran said:
Well we certainly have a rich heritage of houses that are both beautiful and have stood the test of time in this country. I make furniture and have always felt part of a tradition, there are times when I'm accutely aware of how skills that took 500 years to perfect have been forgotten and I can only imagine Louis the 14th's cabinet makers looking down from on high, rolling their eyes and shrugging their shoulders at what passes for good design today.
Do architects these days draw on their own heritage, the thousand years of design and good practice that have gone before ? It appears not... they like to make boxes, in glass and metal. Mies Van der Rohe did that in 1929 and nobody seems to have improved on it in 86 years, other than to perhaps make it airtight.
Things change and evolve over time; I bet there were master craftsmen in Louis the 14ths time saying it's all cr@p, no one has learnt anything, traditions established back in Louis the 2nds time have disappeared etc.Do architects these days draw on their own heritage, the thousand years of design and good practice that have gone before ? It appears not... they like to make boxes, in glass and metal. Mies Van der Rohe did that in 1929 and nobody seems to have improved on it in 86 years, other than to perhaps make it airtight.
Edited by loughran on Friday 6th November 18:34
You're in the bespoke furniture making business IIRC - we/you need clients like the ones who build these houses (and lets not forget it's not all the fault of the architects - it's clients money paying for these things). It's these people who are allowing niche, craftspeople to remain viable in these days of cheap Chinese imports and Oak Furniture landalikes on each street corner or virtual high street.
I'm certainly not a fan of everything put forward on that list or shown on Grand Designs but in the main I'm appreciative that there are people out there who don't think they're being brave by going for a red front door on their house in an identikit housing estate of 400 anodyne homes. People who are prepared to push it a bit and pay for something different, unique are essential to avoid a creeping stagnation and mediocrity in architecture and interior design in general.
We may find yet another larch clad, bifold door property boring but these are by a long stretch the exception not the rule - if you really want to criticise what's going on point the finger at Wimpey, Barrat etc and the people who buy into that faux VicGeorgeTudor aesthetic pulled from the collective (un)imagination of what is, sadly, the majority of people out "there". There's also a lack of ambition or imagination on display from planning departments which in many cases function as a stifling influence on the evolution of building. It's ironic that much of the character of those old, rich heritage, type buildings to which many refer are possesive of those qualities because they've evolved and adapted over the years to prevailing tastes and changes in the way people live.
I'm not sure (and this is not directed personally at you) I get the concept that this is all the architects fault; there's a theme across these GD threads that it's the poncy architects fault, are they designing with a mouse in one hand and a gun to a client's head in the other? Architects design for a client, a client chooses them based on a portfolio of work which presumably resonates with the client.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff