Which style of architecture do you detest the most?

Elojikal · Post by **Elojikal** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:07 pm

This may seem slightly off-topic but it is both directly and indirectly related to the railways.

We all have particular styles of architecture we adore but then there are also some we absolutely loathe.

My favourite types of architecture are Regency, Baroque and Italianate but I absolutely loathe Art Deco. I Despise this cheap and nasty form of architecture with a passion. I've seen sand castles with more sophistication. I also have quite a dislike for some forms of International, those that share common traits with Art Deco at least. When I am King I will have every single Art Deco building in this country obliterated!

I also don't particularly like Gothic revival, like that found at St. Pancras, which seems quite corny to me.

arabiandisco · Post by **arabiandisco** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:18 pm

I love Art Deco, so you'll have to obliterate me too! Well, I think it's art deco - the kind seen at (since this is a railway forum!) Surbiton, on the Chessington South line, and Templecombe. Battersea power station and Bankside (without the godawful Tate Modern glass boxes - I might be interested in what's in it if it was a preserved power station!) are pretty appealing to me sense of aesthetics.

I also quite like Italianate.

Brutalist is about the pits as far as I'm concerned.

I don't like the Midland Hotel much, it's far too "twiddly", but the trainshed is excellent. Clean lines, though with some thought given to form is my idea of architecture. A lot of what goes up these days is just an ego trip for architects. I mean, London's Assembly building - what is that thing?

davidaward · Post by **davidaward** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:50 pm

Whatetever syling (or lack of style) was put into monstrosities like Manchester Oxford Road. The building is hideous!

Post by **martinhodgson** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 8:01 pm

I have no preference - whatever looks good and suits its surroundings, I suppose. What I detest is when a nice building is replaced by some cheap and nasty edifice - Birmingham New Street and Manchester Victoria case in point!

andrewtoplis · Post by **andrewtoplis** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 9:31 pm

Oh come on, there are some superb art-deco tube stations out there - think Charles Holden. They have a high level of detail that goes right down to the minutia, platform benchs, clocks and so on. In original condition they looked superb, look on the LT museum photo archive if you dont believe me. I would never have called it cheap and nasty, but the problem is some of the building materials then in vogue seem not to have aged as well as others, and many have had extensions or modifications tacked on. Also older buildings seem to be recognised as 'heritage' and fought for more than 1930s have so far, maybe in 50 years the balance will have changed again.

I too cant stand the 1960s/70s/80s bus shelter school of design. You can bulldoze them with my blessing.

BR7MT · Post by **BR7MT** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 9:41 pm

I'm rather neutral about Art Deco - it suits some structures better than others.

I do detest the large scale bus shelter design philosophy though!

Regards,

Dan

allypally · Post by **allypally** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 9:43 pm

Where's the option for Concreteism?

96smitro · Post by **96smitro** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 9:45 pm

Whatetever syling (or lack of style) was put into monstrosities like Manchester Oxford Road. The building is hideous!

You might find it shocking then then its actually a listed structure (Grade II), due to it being a prime example of a parabolic arch type building - not in the same leagues as the Sydney opera house but if you squint really hard at the roof you can see the similarities!

For those who detest Modernism, consider the architecture of Charles Holden on the London Underground, with the use of simple,clean geometric shapes. Modernism has a bad reputation, but there are good examples, and it can work if done properly. Same with most architecture really.

For me personally, variety is key! Different stations have different appeals and can make a rail station a destination in its own right - St. Pancras, no matter what your opinion on the details are, is instantly recognisable.

Bland stations that have little identity, character, and look like they have come straight from Ikea (i.e. a standard kit of parts). I don't like as much as they give no form of visual recognition.

I mean, London's Assembly building - what is that thing?

I quite like that building actually (along with the Gherkin) - it has character, unlike some glass boxes that go up in some cities.

nwallace · Post by **nwallace** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 12:41 am

Other than Hidum Concretum i think all styles have really good examples and really bad examples.

It's perfectly possible to make soemthing nice with Reinforced concrete. Though a lick of paint might be very useful.

RobertM · Post by **RobertM** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 1:47 am

I hate those houses you see in CSI Miami, full glass fronts, concrete floors, YUCK!!!

MuzTrem · Post by **MuzTrem** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 10:41 am

I detest the concrete boxes of the 50s, 60s and 70s above all else. With other styles of architecture, no matter whether or nt you personally like them, at least the designers tried to show some aesthetic appreciation...

Personally I quite like Art Deco - it is very stylish IMHO and I think that the Southern Railway in particular put it to good use. I do like St. Pancras but I do not think that architecture has to be extravagent to be attractive. Plain, but tasteful, designs such as King's Cross and Marylebone can be just as attractive.