Stately - bungalow? Pics...

[Nemesis]

We once came across, in the middle of the night in the middle of nowhere, a (gentle?)man playing the Scottish bagpipes.

I wonder if he had been banished there by the missus?

Gentleman:

Traditionally, an armigerous member of the British landed gentry ranking immediately below an esquire

This could prove useful I suppose (warning - vulgarity included):


http://www.crombiejardine.com/books/190510216x.html

 

[Penners]

That makes one wonder how the word "gentle" came to have its modern meaning.

 

[Flyfisher]

The cabe links were interesting, particularly the "What Causes Bad Design" section in one of them, which points the finger at a lack of understanding, going for the lowest price, traditional opposition of anything new and the development control planning system.

But, given that architectural design is a highly regulated professional activity, and given all the 'good design' practices in the architectural literature, which is presumably taught during the long period of architect training, it does seem strange that 'bad design' is an ever present problem.

If the great unwashed masses were doing their own designs then it might be more understandable, but the designers in question are highly qualified, highly regulated professional people. Very strange.

 

[Nemesis]

I've spent the past few days writing zillions of words objecting to what I think are the wrong buildings in the wrong place. Or the right place.

I have now to start writing another zillion. My fingers are sore.

Please excuse me if I don't get involved with this!

 

[chuckey]

99% of people recognize good design and 99% of people recognize bad design, its all the stuff in the middle that causes the rows. And of course the odd 1%!
Architects like all people know about good design, its just that they comissioned to to a cheap design. If they don't their children starve.
Frank

 

[Mark]

If the great unwashed masses were doing their own designs then it might be more understandable, but the designers in question are highly qualified, highly regulated professional people. Very strange.

From my own experience that isnt always a good thing. Government IT projects anyone ?

 

[Flyfisher]

I wasn't thinking about specifics examples, more the general point that if 'bad design' can be so readily quantified why is it that a professional body of people, backed up with a legally binding regulatory framework, so often get it wrong?

I find it really hard to believe that anyone wants to be involved with bad design, yet it obviously still happens. What happens to the people involved in such 'disasters'?

Re: Government IT projects - yes, a good example. Maybe it's some universal law that causes projects and/or systems to overwhelm all the good intentions of the participants.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

The cabe links were interesting, particularly the "What Causes Bad Design" section in one of them, which points the finger at a lack of understanding, going for the lowest price, traditional opposition of anything new and the development control planning system.

But, given that architectural design is a highly regulated professional activity, and given all the 'good design' practices in the architectural literature, which is presumably taught during the long period of architect training, it does seem strange that 'bad design' is an ever present problem.

If the great unwashed masses were doing their own designs then it might be more understandable, but the designers in question are highly qualified, highly regulated professional people. Very strange.

Well, one problem is that the Great Unwashed are doing their own "design", and have been for about the last 50 years since the post-war rise of so-called DIY (which actually means, getting someone else to make the bits to the cheapest common denominator and lull you into the mistaken sense that in sticking together someone else's pre-packaged standard shoddy product you are being self-sufficient rather than ripped off), which they weren't able to do when they were just grateful that the landlord put a roof over their heads (with help from either a great architect or a master builder who'd actually looked closely at what the local nobs were building after their Grand Tour, "wandering round Italy in a big shirt trying to get laid" as Blackadder so rightly put it).
Another is that we live in a relativistic age when criticising a qualified architect (or anyone else) for for being visually illiterate brings down cries of "elitism". What's wrong with belonging to an elite? If your "taste" shows you to be a vulgar idiot, then it's right that you should be criticised for it. It never did Horace Walpole's drinking buddies any harm.
The vast majority of building work in this country is commissioned, and carried out, by people (mostly, but far from entirely, not qualified architects) who have no idea about good proportion, proper detailing, craftsmanship and all the other things that make the buildings they try, and fail, to emulate so much better (yes, better, what a snob I am) than their own efforts. It doesn't help that schools of architecture encourage their students to believe that they'll all be Modernist prima donnas designing the next Gherkin or Pompidou Centre so that when they leave Uni and their first client says "I want a Georgian-style house", they haven't a clue how to do it.
It doesn't help that (as has always been the case) there are architects who are good at the purely visual side of design, architects who can make a building stand up, and architects who are good businessmen, but the three are rarely, if ever, to be found in the one body.
As for grammar, she's in the back room watching TV with Lynne Truss (who's book on the comma I highly recommend, as you brought grammar into it in the first place). Perhaps I spend too much time listening to Radio 4.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

surely there must be room for all tastes? Presumably the owners really like their home, and who are we to judge?

I don't think we're judging - just expressing our views. Or in my case, self-censoring our views!

I hope we are judging, and quite right too. It's only by being judgemental that the basic standards of civilisation were established in the first place. :twisted:

 

[NT]

I've never heard DIY defined as just assembling flatpacks before. The best craftsmen & women tend to do their own work, and diy is what that is.

It would seem generous to describe flatpack assembly as diy.


NT

 

[NT]

We need bad design... if we want good design.

Most building aesthetic design is the result of no great level of education, and is as good as people can make it. By being permitted to see a variety of designs in the world, both good and bad, people improve their understanding of design, and can produce better output.

Our planning system really keeps the standard down. It does prevent most of the very worst, but it also lowers the average considerably, and heavily hampers progress.


NT

 

[Flyfisher]

Well, one problem is that the Great Unwashed are doing their own "design", and have been for about the last 50 years since the post-war rise of so-called DIY (which actually means, getting someone else to make the bits to the cheapest common denominator and lull you into the mistaken sense that in sticking together someone else's pre-packaged standard shoddy product you are being self-sufficient rather than ripped off), which they weren't able to do when they were just grateful that the landlord put a roof over their heads (with help from either a great architect or a master builder who'd actually looked closely at what the local nobs were building after their Grand Tour, "wandering round Italy in a big shirt trying to get laid" as Blackadder so rightly put it).

I take the point that DIY is, almost by definition, an unregulated activity. But I still maintain that no-one deliberately decides to implement something badly (ignoring the fact that some people will lack the skills to actually do a quality job - I'm talking about the design aspects).

Aren't we just talking about opinions, which can't really be inherently 'good' or 'bad' - assuming they are not in denial of actual facts.

Another is that we live in a relativistic age when criticising a qualified architect (or anyone else) for for being visually illiterate brings down cries of "elitism". What's wrong with belonging to an elite? If your "taste" shows you to be a vulgar idiot, then it's right that you should be criticised for it.

Perhaps one problem is that 'elites' tend to be self-defined and self-congratulating. One man's vulgar idiot is another man's pompous ass. Again isn't it all just opinion? Nothing wrong with holding self-proclaimed 'elite' opinions, of course - the problems, in my view, begin when any such 'elite' decides it should have influence over those who do not share the same 'elite' opinions.

It doesn't help that (as has always been the case) there are architects who are good at the purely visual side of design, architects who can make a building stand up, and architects who are good businessmen, but the three are rarely, if ever, to be found in the one body.

I'd be very surprised if an individual architect was good at everything; surely that would be unrealistic? But it shouldn't be unrealistic to expect teams of differently skilled people and the regulatory systems to combine to give a 'good' outcome. Any system reliant on one type of 'superman' is almost bound to fail.

As for grammar, she's in the back room watching TV with Lynne Truss (who's book on the comma I highly recommend, as you brought grammar into it in the first place).

My grammar comment was purely in response to the recent arguments over the criticism of grammar in posts on this forum. Although, thinking about it a bit more, at least grammar does have a set of defined rules so it is at least possible to objectively criticise bad grammar.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

I've never heard DIY defined as just assembling flatpacks before. The best craftsmen & women tend to do their own work, and diy is what that is.


NT

No, that's craftsmanship, whether you bought the "ingredients" at BandQ or felled them in the woods yourself.

I doubt it's available on DVD but one of Jonathan Meades' "Abroad in Britain" BBC programmes from 1990 dealt with exactly this difference in the context of the plotland developments round Bewdley in Worcestershire. In the 1920s and 30s DIY, even for the most unskilled, involved a degree of working out the problem before solving it, modern DIY removes the need to think, improvise, or even to bodge (which when doen honestly can be a wonderful thing)

 

[Nemesis]

Actually English grammar doesn't really have a set of defined 'rules', but that's a different discussion entirely and not one I can be arsed with on PPUK.

Here's Hugh Pearman on design:

http://www.hughpearman.com/2007/05.html

 

[Penners]

modern DIY removes the need to think, improvise, or even to bodge (which when doen honestly can be a wonderful thing)

Surely there are as many types and qualities of DIY as there are of designs and buildings.

Some amateur DIY-ers develop a good level of creativity and skill over a wide range of building/repairing/renovating/decorating tasks. Others make an abysmal job of whatever they turn their incompetent hands to.

And in between there's every shade of grey you can imagine.

 

[Moo]

A bit like language, come to think of it.

 

[plumbers mate]

A page or so back someone wrote about bad design ...

>>which is presumably taught during the long period of architect training, it does seem strange that 'bad design' is an ever present problem.

Have you seen the sort of things students turn out? I have and am not surprised by what is offered as design for buildings.

I'm thinking about getting the etiquette book mentioned for one of my colleagues ......

 

[Nemesis]

Should be required reading for all blokes...

 

[Flyfisher]

Here's Hugh Pearman on design:

So? Isn't this just another opinion?

I could probably* find a link to an article extolling the virtues of stone-cladding, but that would only be another opinion and what would it prove? Presumably there's quite a body of opinion that such things are visually appealing, otherwise why on earth would anyone do it?


* this is devil's advocacy you'll understand

 

[Flyfisher]

Have you seen the sort of things students turn out? I have and am not surprised by what is offered as design for buildings.

But surely students are still learning? Perhaps we should be more concerned with the quality of teaching and/or mentoring?