Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\05\02 22:59, wrote: Phew , I half expected to open that and find that it had been demolished by an errant road sweeper or worse been uprooted and swiped for some town or city's twee improved pedestrian area with newly laid cobbles and reproduction Edwardian lampposts till I noticed the 2014 date. Either a thing looks nice or it doesn't. Why was it okay for Edwardians to make things that looked nice but it's not okay for us? The people who make beauty in the age of ugliness deserve praise, not criticism. They do, but producing pastiche Edwardian stuff is worthy of much less praise than producing good original designs. Modern stuff often is, but need not be, ugly. |
#22
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 2 May 2017 23:48:20 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: Basil Jet wrote: On 2017\05\02 22:59, wrote: Phew , I half expected to open that and find that it had been demolished by an errant road sweeper or worse been uprooted and swiped for some town or city's twee improved pedestrian area with newly laid cobbles and reproduction Edwardian lampposts till I noticed the 2014 date. Either a thing looks nice or it doesn't. Why was it okay for Edwardians to make things that looked nice but it's not okay for us? The people who make beauty in the age of ugliness deserve praise, not criticism. They do, but producing pastiche Edwardian stuff is worthy of much less praise than producing good original designs. Modern stuff often is, but need not be, ugly. Depends. Modern buildings are IMO range from the uninspired to the pig ugly. Even the shard doesn't really do it for me - a 3 year old can draw a giant glass pyramid, where is the inspiration and fine detail? And as for the identikit office blocks, rabbit hutch houses and industrial estates the less said the better. OTOH cars are looking pretty good these days, its hard to find a really ugly one anymore, and tech stuff also looks pretty smart to me. -- Spud |
#23
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , at 08:27:15 on Wed, 3 May
2017, d remarked: OTOH cars are looking pretty good these days, its hard to find a really ugly one anymore Plenty of them are really ugly. The Nissan Joke, for example. -- Roland Perry |
#24
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 3 May 2017 10:13:06 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 08:27:15 on Wed, 3 May 2017, d remarked: OTOH cars are looking pretty good these days, its hard to find a really ugly one anymore Plenty of them are really ugly. The Nissan Joke, for example. Well alright, I didn't say there weren't any. But everyday car design (obviously not ferraris etc) went down the toilet from the mid 70s to about the late 90s but in the last 15 or so years its improved immensely IMO. -- Spud |
#26
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 3 May 2017 00:25:14 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote: On 2017\05\02 22:59, wrote: Phew , I half expected to open that and find that it had been demolished by an errant road sweeper or worse been uprooted and swiped for some town or city's twee improved pedestrian area with newly laid cobbles and reproduction Edwardian lampposts till I noticed the 2014 date. Either a thing looks nice or it doesn't. Why was it okay for Edwardians to make things that looked nice but it's not okay for us? The people who make beauty in the age of ugliness deserve praise, not criticism. We agree on this. Not everything the Edwardians built was beautiful. Not everything thing built since the 1960s is ugly. But, the balance is sure in favor of the Edwardians. |
#27
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\05\02 22:59, wrote: Phew , I half expected to open that and find that it had been demolished by an errant road sweeper or worse been uprooted and swiped for some town or city's twee improved pedestrian area with newly laid cobbles and reproduction Edwardian lampposts till I noticed the 2014 date. Either a thing looks nice or it doesn't. Why was it okay for Edwardians to make things that looked nice but it's not okay for us? The people who make beauty in the age of ugliness deserve praise, not criticism. Fashions change, of course. For example, the late Victorian Tower Bridge is now highly regarded as one of London's icons, but was much criticised when built. Less well known is that the key engineer who worked on it was Brunel. No, not I K Brunel, but his son, Henry Marc Brunel. |
#28
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 6 May 2017 23:20:35 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: Basil Jet wrote: On 2017\05\02 22:59, wrote: Phew , I half expected to open that and find that it had been demolished by an errant road sweeper or worse been uprooted and swiped for some town or city's twee improved pedestrian area with newly laid cobbles and reproduction Edwardian lampposts till I noticed the 2014 date. Either a thing looks nice or it doesn't. Why was it okay for Edwardians to make things that looked nice but it's not okay for us? The people who make beauty in the age of ugliness deserve praise, not criticism. Fashions change, of course. For example, the late Victorian Tower Bridge is now highly regarded as one of London's icons, but was much criticised when built. Less well known is that the key engineer who worked on it was Brunel. No, not I K Brunel, but his son, Henry Marc Brunel. The Eiffel Tower was widely seen as hideous when it was built but now its the de facto symbol of France. However I'm probably in the tiny minority who think its detractors were right - it is butt ugly and looks like an electricity pylon on steroids IMO. -- Spud |
#29
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 08 May 2017 00:33:07 +0100
wrote: On Sun, 7 May 2017 16:44:31 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: Fashions change, of course. For example, the late Victorian Tower Bridge is now highly regarded as one of London's icons, but was much criticised when built. The Eiffel Tower was widely seen as hideous when it was built but now its the de facto symbol of France. However I'm probably in the tiny minority who think its detractors were right - it is butt ugly and looks like an electricity pylon on steroids IMO. You'll be glad the English one was stillborn then. http://spiritofmirko.com/wp-content/...tower_1900.jpg I presume there would have been more to it than that? Unless thats all they could afford! -- Spud |
#30
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote:
On Mon, 08 May 2017 00:33:07 +0100 wrote: On Sun, 7 May 2017 16:44:31 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: Fashions change, of course. For example, the late Victorian Tower Bridge is now highly regarded as one of London's icons, but was much criticised when built. The Eiffel Tower was widely seen as hideous when it was built but now its the de facto symbol of France. However I'm probably in the tiny minority who think its detractors were right - it is butt ugly and looks like an electricity pylon on steroids IMO. You'll be glad the English one was stillborn then. http://spiritofmirko.com/wp-content/...tower_1900.jpg I presume there would have been more to it than that? Unless thats all they could afford! That's when the money ran out. It had been intended to be 150' taller than the French original. All part of Watkin's Metroland vision. Wembley Stadium's Twin Towers were later built on top of the old tower's foundations. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watkin%27s_Tower |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
I've been dealt the Queen of Diamonds | London Transport | |||
Stations named after commercial entities | London Transport | |||
Stations named after commercial entities | London Transport | |||
"Queen to open St Pancras station" today | London Transport | |||
Bakerloo Line gets telegram from Queen | London Transport |