Question for the Scots

[Kid Cossack]

The overhead shots remind me of nothing so much as a haggis that's been cooked overlong in the oven. I do like the interior shots, but the exterior leaves me cold. I'm not averse to striking, or strikingly different, buildings, but this one doesn't blow any wind up my pleats at all.

[LordKiltClad]

Being an Architect I have a differing opinion from most of you. Budget Aside.

The church project I'm currently working on is roughly $30 million over budget. But that's all gravy.

I rather enjoy the design. It can said that the Architect was thinking to be controversial with it. It certainly has all of you guys/gals talking about it.

It draws attention for sure. Much like the Holocaust Museum in Germany or the Gugenhiem(sp?) Museum in Madrid. Also it shows off the struggle seen by government. The ups and downs of society, the intertwining strings that link the varied people of Scotland together. Concrete for the outside showing the harshness of the world, yet the great warmth of wood on the inside showing the intent is towards people, which is what it's all supposed to be about anyways.

I haven't read the Wiki article and this may not be what the Architect had in mind, but definitely conveys that sentiment to me. But that's my opinion.

[McClef]

$30 Million is a helluva lot of gravy!

[brandycr]

Ok was born in the states and do not live there so cant say to much but will say this .......thats one ugly da** building,looks like a spaceage robot and a three year olds art work mated and puked that out.Of Course being American cant give my real opinion lol.Sorry if i offended anyone but its just my opinion.

[Sean_the_Kilted]

Having lived in europe for a few years and seen various capitols and other important buldings, I would say that it doesn't look like most other european goverment buldings. Most are very traditional and ornate in manner; very historical looking. They fit in with the historical archtectical context of the area. If the Scottish Parilament was bult in Chicago or New York, people might intially look twice, but it would quickly fade into the background. In Edinburgh, it sticks out like a sore thumb and is not what people expect. As was mentioned before, I think the scottish parilament and the archtect wanted it to be controversal and discussed. Especially since it was the first parilament in Scotland for several hundred years, they wanted the bulding and hence the Parilament organization to stick out and not let people forget about it. I personally don't like its style in the context of the surrounding area, but I can appreciate it for what it is and the purpose it was designed for.

[Hamish]

I have not heard Prince Charles' opinions of this building (I am SURE he has some!) but I'd not be surprised if he thought of it as a carbunkle on the face of Edinburgh!

My own opinion, and I have seen it's exterior several times and the interior once, is that it is an utter disgrace and an affront to the purpose for which it was built. The exterior, to my eye, resembles an unfinished building site (maybe it IS unfinished for all we know!), whilst the interior is like that of a modern secondary school - the debating chamber itself is a cross between a school gymnasium with desks set out for an examination, and a TV studio! The overhead lighting would be a credit to a TV studio or theatre, and the evidence of so many TV cameras does not help to dispel this opinion.

Here I am in the Chamber, in September 2004:



As for the location of this place, I just cannot imagine what the planners were thinking when they allowed 'it' to be constructed immediately across the road from the historic, stately and Oh so beautiful Palace of Holyroodhouse.

[macwilkin]

The look on Ham's face in that picture says it all.

T.

[Phil]

I have not heard Prince Charles' opinions of this building (I am SURE he has some!) but I'd not be surprised if he thought of it as a carbunkle on the face of Edinburgh!

My own opinion, and I have seen it's exterior several times and the interior once, is that it is an utter disgrace and an affront to the purpose for which it was built. The exterior, to my eye, resembles an unfinished building site (maybe it IS unfinished for all we know!), whilst the interior is like that of a modern secondary school - the debating chamber itself is a cross between a school gymnasium with desks set out for an examination, and a TV studio! The overhead lighting would be a credit to a TV studio or theatre, and the evidence of so many TV cameras does not help to dispel this opinion.

Here I am in the Chamber, in September 2004:



As for the location of this place, I just cannot imagine what the planners were thinking when they allowed 'it' to be constructed immediately across the road from the historic, stately and Oh so beautiful Palace of Holyroodhouse.

Prince Charles had some pretty negative opinions about the National Museum extension too but he changed his mind when he saw it finished. I agree with you though that it looks like a school gymnasium and I can't get over the the banister rails set at strange angles. There are a lot of beautiful buildings in Edinburgh but if anyone tried to reproduce them nowadays they would cost an awful lot more than this Parliament. At least it is controversial unlike the St. James Centre or that carbuncle being demolished on George IV bridge. It will be interesting to see what they are replaced with. Don't talk about planners by the way. If you knowThe Barnton Hotel as you come in from the Forth bridge, the developers actually stated that they had been encouraged by the Planning Department to design a cutting edge modern building to replace the Victorian landmark - oh and they could cram in more expensive flats as a result.

[beloitpiper]

Here's how I see it: it may be controversial and ultra-hipster-modern now but I predict that it will become outdated and tacky very soon. That's why I personally prefer classic styles (especailly for government buildings). Walking around DC, the government buildings are beautiful and inspiring, whereas this building may be new and exciting, but for how long?

I guess, just like my kilts, I'm a big traditionalist.

[Mike1]

Hamish, at least you were not in the debating chamber when the overhead beam decided to cut loose.