Preston Bus Station to be demolished

[Clip]

Good point. It was £297,000 last year and would likely be significantly less if brought up to standard. But it would still be more costly than a modern purpose built building.
Have you answered your own question? He wanted to buy it for £1 and spend just £2M on refurbishment with no commitment as to future use.

And for that he wasnt the right choice.

That still does not mean that a redevelopment of the whole bus station would not have brought benefits to not only the station but the surrounding area.


Would you like me to point out some terrible areas that have benefited from regeneration? Using the same buildings?

Preston council have made the wrong decision.

 

[snail]

Would you like me to point out some terrible areas that have benefited from regeneration? Using the same buildings?

No thanks. I understand where you are coming from and it looks like we won't agree. For every re-use of an existing building it's easy to find examples of demolition and new builds.

 

[Nick W]

But so was the Get Carter car park in Gateshead and you don't see many people bemoaning its loss.

There were calls for it to be conserved. I for one would like at lest one of Owen Luder's works to be preserved somewhere in the UK.

I think the problem is people's perception of concrete. The physcological association of concrete with 1960s-70s failed social housing projects and destructive ring roads means that people automatically perceive any concrete buildings as ugly, even if modern day buildings have a similar design but with different materials.

 

[Ivo]

I think the problem is people's perception of concrete. The physcological association of concrete with 1960s-70s failed social housing projects and destructive ring roads means that people automatically perceive any concrete buildings as ugly, even if modern day buildings have a similar design but with different materials.

It's not just a perception - for the most part untreated and/or cheap concrete buildings are "ugly"! Modern buildings for the most part are either not concrete or (if they are) they are given a radical aesthetic improvement. One needs only compare the stereotypical image of a New Town with the one New Town that is actually considered the stereotype (Milton Keynes) to notice the difference.

 

[Nick W]

It's not just a perception - for the most part untreated and/or cheap concrete buildings are "ugly"! Modern buildings for the most part are either not concrete or (if they are) they are given a radical aesthetic improvement. One needs only compare the stereotypical image of a New Town with the one New Town that is actually considered the stereotype (Milton Keynes) to notice the difference.

No it really is the material!

Concrete:

Glass:

Both by the same architect!

 

[Ivo]

But the latter isn't "ugly" because of the glass - it's the coloured stuff! I agree that it's a poor example of modern architecture though, and I'm not saying for one moment that glass is a perfect choice either.

The former really is ugly though.

 

[Nick W]

But the latter isn't "ugly" because of the glass - it's the coloured stuff! I agree that it's a poor example of modern architecture though, and I'm not saying for one moment that glass is a perfect choice either.

The former really is ugly though.

Agree that it's a poor example? The architect is Le Corbusier!
What next? Bach's works are poor examples of Baroque music?

Believe me, if you can guarantee that Preston's new bus station can surpass Le Corbusier work's, then by all means knock it down!

The point is, you consider the first to be really ugly because of your physcological association with concrete!

 

[Ivo]

Having stared at the second for a good couple of minutes, I accept I may have been a touch - OK, more than a touch - harsh. But the concrete one is still not aesthetically pleasing - it is nothing to do with psychology (I assume this is what you meant?), it's just true. The way it gets slowly discoloured by rain doesn't help either.

Anyhow, this is the last post I will be making relating to aesthetics. My point with Preston still stands - function is more important than appearance or heritage.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

As this is a rail-based forum, I beg to put forward one railway edifice constructed of concrete that has both strength and a certain type of beauty. I refer to the Glenfinnan Viaduct, constructed between 1897 and 1898, on the West Highland line.

That structure has lasted over 110 years and has been exposed to the prevailing weathers all year round in the situation it is in.

 

[tbtc]

you consider the first to be really ugly because of your physcological association with concrete!

I consider that building to be ugly because its ugly.

If you want to analyse my physcology then fair enough, but the name of the architect is meaningless in assessing beauty (or lack of!).