‘Eyesore buildings’ up for debate
Monday 19th July 2010, 11:30AM BST.
A modern glass-fronted design is to replace this house overlooking Portelet. (Picture by Tom Tardif, 0997957)
DELEGATES from all sides are gearing up for the Eyesore Debate.
Architects, government planning experts and anti-eyesore campaigners are preparing to go head to head at the Arts Commission-organised event.
Anti-eyesore petitioner Robin Penna said he did not want the cause to be misunderstood.
‘We are not campaigning against modern architecture but, as former Island Development Committee president Tom Ogier called them, buildings that are incongruous with their surroundings,’ he said.
Mr Penna added that it was a sad irony that one such perceived eyesore has been planned for Portelet, metres from a memorial bench to the late IDC president that reads: ‘Tom Ogier – He fought to preserve the beauty of Guernsey.’
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. See below for subscription details.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
It’s rare I say it but the GP has got it spot on when it describes one of Mr Penna’s targets as a “perceived eyesore.” Indeed a more accurate description of their campaign would be against “buildings that in their opinion are incongruous with their surroundings but which others might think are fine.”
I don’t want Guernsey over-developed either but changes in architectural design are quite normal. I think a more appropriate campaign would be to oppose over-development of green areas rather than the age old practice of replacing old buildings with a more contemporary design.
Report abuse
Well said Paul. I was in Town a couple of weeks ago with a couple of UK based friends who were bowled over by the skyline. I asked them about the new glass structure near Clifton that some find so offensive and, like me, they thought it fitted in really well with all the older buildings and was not in the least incongruous.
Also, I was listening to a programme on Radio 4 the other day about the relative architectural merits of Paris and London. One quote in particular stayed in my mind: “A city that does not build is dead”.
You are right, Paul, it is a ‘perceived’ eyesore and the perceiving is being done by people who are stuck in the past and who do not want us to move on. People who, in socio-architectural terms, are ‘dead’.
So three cheers for modern architecture that is tastefully and sympathetically done and long may this trend continue in Guernsey.
Report abuse
tired looking, not-historically-significant-at all-50s-bungalow vs a contemporary design hmmmmmmmmm
Report abuse
Totally agree with both your comments Paul Le Page and Martino.
There’s plenty of examples in the world where new and old architecture work well. Giving it a sense of historical importance without being rooted in the past.
I, for one love our skyline and the view we get as we come in the harbour. I’m sure there will be many who disagree but I think it shows that Guernsey is very much in the now and is not opposed to change.
Jersey seafront on the other hand….
Report abuse
Gwen – lol, in my imagination I’m thinking of the Cullen’s house in Twilight…that’s not all that bad is it? Much better than a house that even my nan would have turned her nose up at.
Report abuse
Not only are there the stylistic considerations but also the issue of sustainability with retaining old buildings.
Whilst it is generally accepted that construction itself is not environmentally friendly, the wasted energy from heating a dilapidated house will far exceed the sum of the embodied energy plus the energy needed to heat a modern construction over a given time.
Report abuse
In 200 years when people look back and say where is the architecturally significant buildings built in the 2000s they’ll laugh when the history books say everyone decided to live in ruins and continually waste time, money and effort maintaining old dilapidated and in-efficient properties.
Every previous generation has effectively moved with the times and just got on with development and improved standards of living, why should this generation be any different ?
That’s not to say that the truly significant historical buildings should not be preserved but listing a building for having a piece of Granite or being a prime example of a 60′s bungalow is really taking it to silly and counter productive levels IMO.
Report abuse
i’m with plep here. please note how the island is riddled with ribbon development – every little road and lane has houses built alongside and this deeply flawed planning policy is still having its effects. was this the great tom ogier’s policy? i think there is room for modern and traditional but it is hugely subjective. i love the gherkin. my concern in guernsey is that big business will use their wealth to pressure the planners to allow the wrong development in our tiny space. e.g. admiral park front, whose buildings are simply too high for the proximity to the waterfront – no balance to see or feel. they would be much less imposing and intimidating if either one or two floors lower, or staggered in height as they retreat from the seafront. anyone with a feel for the island landscape (and not being unfaithful to their architectural or planning professions can surely see that?) but so obviously profit was maximised over public pride and comfort, to the permanent detriment to everyone bar the developer. guernsey ain’t big enough for greed like this.
Report abuse
Good stuff. I`m going to say my piece at the “Eyesores” Debate on Thursday this week at Beausie Theatre 6 – 8 pm.
Should be lively one with Jamie Falla flying the flag for the free thinkers!
I think you have to contact the arts commission to book a place. Yes just checked the number 739747.
Report abuse
Good architecture should reflect the times, so modern architecture should use modern materials. The architecture of the past did this but times have changed and we should change with them. Re-hashing the past to keep a few oldies happy is not the way to go.
Report abuse
I just cannot fathom how anyone can think the action of turning Guernsey into another slightly upmarket version of Torremolinos can be a good thing for either the architectural, ethical or monetary value of the island. It beggars belief. To look outwards to other parts of the world only confirms what a disaster this would be for the island in terms of identity and marketability to both the occasional tourist and the wealthy tax evader. With several high profile names that have the ability to live pretty much anywhere in the world coming to Guernsey recently based on it’s current merits, why the great debate on whether we should preserve our current image? While the rest of the world is losing it’s charm based on the hard economic fact of having to keep people employed, (Spain, anyone?) where is the pressure on Guernsey to do likewise? I just don’t get it.
Report abuse
I’ve heard people hark back to the days of Tom Ogier. Isn’t that the same Tom Ogier that allowed unbridled ribbon development and a bungalow in the back of every garden?
“but so obviously profit was maximised over public pride and comfort, to the permanent detriment to everyone bar the developer.”
That’s a bit emotional and, in my view, selective.
You forget to mention the benefit to the island: tenants commitment, pressure off St Peter Port, replacing a crappy waste land; along with the masses of extra employment created by the facilities management of the whole site, it’s maintenance opportunities and training and a very large retail operation.
Ok, so it ain’t everyone’s cup-of-tea, but modern businesses need modern buildings. It is a vast improvement on what was previously there.
Don’t get so dewey-eyed about the past; most of you weren’t there, recollections are often incorrect and society moves on.
Report abuse
Emotive nonsense Glasseyesore. Have you ever been to Torremolinos? I very much doubt it. I’ve been to that neck of a woods a few times, usually staying up the road at Fuengirola, and it is plainly silly even to try to compare the modern additions to the St Peter Port skyline to the architecture on the Costa del Sol.
Report abuse
I agree with mr penna on this issue Guernsey,s old world charm and period feature buildings are becomimg more and more of a rariety look at those offices overlooking the seafront in town we are an island NOT a city! and I believe that this modern attitude that times are changing and we should adapt to new ideas and welcome such ideas is all well and good but for goodness sake dont destory what heritage Guernsey has left.
Report abuse
From what I have observed in recent years on some developments, It would seem some of our architects are a pretty talentless bunch. I gave my 6 year old granddaughter the task of drawing me a box and adding windows and I have to say it didn’t look much different to some of the glass boxes being erected as homes currently around the island. Nowadays the richness of this community is being systematically destroyed by those who would never have had the talent to create it in the first place and to me that is quite shameful. I do wonder whether some architects really have any imagination at all anymore. If you look back and see the beautiful Georgian and Victorian buildings that grace a large part of our town of St Peter Port, these were designed by architects who clearly had a passion and a flair for their work, together with an eye for proportion and detail, people who knew how to blend buildings into their surroundings. Many of these buildings are often described as “graceful” Georgian town houses with grand front entrances and perfect symmetry with the neighbouring buildings. Houses and shops that by design honoured those that stood along side of them. Giving St Peter Port that richness of something done really well. Almost by accident but certainly by people who knew what they were doing, craftsmen who had skills long forgotten. Oddly enough the previous custodians of this island managed to build some breathtaking buildings all without the help of the subjective opinions of planning officers, many who have little connection with Guernsey whatsoever. In fact all the listed buildings in Guernsey were built long before the IDC / Environment were in existence. My only other comment is that concerning plans drawn up outside the island is that if you give plans drawn up in the UK to a planning officer in Guernsey who is from the UK , then don’t be surprised if the buildings you get look like they belong in the UK.
Report abuse
Glasseyesore : The only part of Guernsey skyline that vaguely resembles Torremolinos is the view of the OGH Hotel from the front side (and that is if you squint a bit). I don’t want to tear it down though. So The Guernsey/Torremolinos analogy isn’t the best one…
I can’t fathom out the objection from Mr Brouard to modern architecture being all about “glass” – seemingly to cover all modern architectural sins. Yet I personally find this type of building much more contemporary than building a new house that copies an old Guernsey cottage, or worse still the 1950′s one level house mentioned in previous comments here. That is my particular taste.
However, I don’t want to go out and evangelically protest about houses being built that don’t fit into the areas of architecture that interest or inspire me as Guernsey should appreciate the diversity of modern buildings alongside the old.
Mr Brouard let himself down and made a bad decision by allowing The Guernsey Press to photograph him outside the house in Rue Hamel (which hasn’t been completed yet) to illustrate his point about glass monstrosities. For me this demonstrated ignorance, arrogance and I can confirm that he certainly does not represent me with anything he has to say here.
What right did he have to do this? I know I would be more than cross if he stood in front of my house and said on the front page of the paper that my house was not to his taste….
I hope that this evening’s debate will be positive and that reasoned and articulate discussions will take place. However I suspect that arguing about architecture and it’s merits is like having a row about the merits of Arsenal and Chelsea. Should be fun though!!
Report abuse
No one goes to Canterbury to stand in wonder at the glass steel and concrete of the new Sainsbury’s. Nor to stand in wonder in Honfleur looking at the Novotel. No one with any appreciation of our Island heritage would allow the concealment of our only dressed granite building with a bracketed granite tower behind the ugly twin pyramids of Grandes Rocques or build a helicopter landing pad in place of the Royal Hotel or think that to stick stainless steel and glass on a ugly concrete excrescence of a building makes it attractive. No one that is except the young who do not know what the island has lost in a lifetime. Or, perhaps, an architect who learnt his trade in London or some other city that has lost so much it no longer cares. Perhaps this is why we have so many nasty buildings that have the roof lights saddling their peaks and industrial warehouse lights like nasty dockland flats. With care the modern built environment can look good – see the Savoy hotel replacement but some buildings as new as ten years old are already looking shabby. If it’s a choice between strip timber covering an already nasty building or a bit of granite – give me granite every time.
Report abuse
Judging by the massive number of bungalows built in ribbon development areas in the 1960s and 1970s, many of which are sandwiched together with little more than 2 metres between them, and with narrow, sloping driveways which invariably result in the owners having to reverse out onto a main road (whey do they never reverse in ?!), in theory nothing different to those would every get built because just about everything else would be “incongruous with the surroundings”. I can think of nothing worse than trying to design new houses which would fit in with such surroundings !
When all the lovely Georgian and Edwardian townhouses were built in the days of Guernsey sea merchants, it pays to remember that at that time they were inevitably “new design”. Everything started off as a “new design” at some stage. Those designers should be praised. Those who designed the truly horrible 60s and 70s bungalows should be shot !
Its time to move with the times, but it can still be sympathetic and attractive. I despise the Admirals Park buildings and Royal Bank site, but the Credit Suisse and Regency House buildings are quite superb, and very attractive to look at, especially when such buildings dominate the skyline.
Modern buyers would like modern-style properties, not properties of a design which was popular 50 years ago. Some period designs become “classics” such as Edwardian or Georgian style properties, and some of the old Guernsey cottages are delightful. But if our parents and grandparents were stuck with a limited choice of designs then all we would have here would be traditional Guernsey cottages, which are not what everyone wants these days.
I could probably think of 1,000 x 50-year old bungalows which are far uglier than some of the new-style glass houses which everybody seems to be so upset about !
Report abuse
Don’t mean to pick on you Dave J but I had to chuckle at your attack on UK planners and architects.
Who you you think was responsible for your “beautiful Georgian and Victorian buildings that grace a large part of our town of St Peter Port”?
Why, yes, UK architects. They were designs imported into the island from England and in their day they were the cutting edge of modernity.
Report abuse
What I have found startling about this issue is that the people who started the petition have listed 4 particular buildings as ones that they perceive as eyesores.
3 of them haven’t been finished! One of them hasn’t even been started! The one at Portelet we are all being informed is going to be awful. Are we all supposed to believe that the people stating this as fact have the wherewithall to understand all of the architectural drawings and know the materials to be used so that they have a clear idea of the final house. What utter nonsense!
This indignant outrage that these men are generating is unfair and not based in fact. At least have the courtesy to have the buildings finished and then form an opinion on whether they stick out like a sore thumb.
There are surely other issues about our built environment that are far more important such as all the awful 60′s bungalows, the delapidated greenhouses which litter our island.
That we should be replicating older styles of architecture in order to remain quaint is ridiculous. There is no integrity whatsoever in building pastiches. That, Dave Jones, truly is lazy architecture.
We are really lucky to have some extremely talented local architects. Dave Jones – you demonstrate your ignorance on the subject by describing them as lazy and talentless. Take some time and have a conversation with one of them. You may not change your mind about your taste in architecture but you would perhaps be able to understand a little more about the complexities and aesthetics of a more contemporary style of architecture.
These buildings that the petitioners perceive as “eyesores” will undoubtedly be cherished in the future. Lets allow for design for the century that we live in.
Report abuse
David| July 22, 2010 at 5:03 pm – excellent post! the more i think about this the more i am coming round to accepting more modern build on the island. this has been helped by dave jones’ post which, after slagging off every architect and planner born after 1901, eventually defaults to his normal slagging off of the dark and demon UK influence. guern planner good – UK planner bad eh dave? and whence do you originate dave? more seriously, i would remind architects and planners that the island is very very small and, please convice me that it will not be only the wealthy that benefit from your skills. around the island i see only the wealthy buyers paying the wealthy draughtsman so far.
Report abuse
“I gave my 6 year old granddaughter the task of drawing me a box and adding windows and I have to say it didn’t look much different to……..”
Roseville Estate?
Report abuse
I don’t know what to make of this glasseyesore comment. It’s somewhat of a misnoma. Technology has allowed us to create larger panes of glass, in some cases with far better insulative values than a granite wall could ever provide even with modern construction methods. Glass is the celebration of light, and a view to the outside. If you wish to be shut in your granite coffin of darkness then be my guest. Your architect can design you such a thing. Meanwhile the rest of us will be enjoying the fruits of human technology to allow this fantastic resource into our homes.
Mr Jones, if you task your granddaughter to draw a box with windows, then you may well expect exactly that. Though she may have visions she does not share with you.
After a very lengthy 7 years of architectural training I find problems with your comment that architects are lacking imagination. Of the historic buildings you refer to, I’d like you to tell me exactly how one is to show imagination by copying them. Notwithstanding, the prescriptive order of these buildings, designed to a formula and in the proportions of the golden ratio, one might argue that these buildings showed less imagination and vision than today’s architectural design styles allow. You only need to read The Ten Books on Architecture by Vitruvius to learn of these principles.
It is funny how rarely one would question their doctor on modern matters of treatment, yet how frequently people proclaim knowledge on architecture and style. The irony is that these people proclaim they are affected by architecture, and yet are more directly affected by their doctor’s treatment.
Maybe no one will go to see the glass/concrete of Sainsbury’s. They will, however, go to London to see the new Glass Shard, of glass, concrete and steel when it is completed.
I wonder to what, exactly, the offence is taken against glass. Perhaps it is the victim by association. Modernism is the crime?
Report abuse
Interesting debate at Beau Sejour last night. (Which the eyesore people narrowly lost).
What is clear is that Deputy Brouard has no objection to modern architecture (I think he means contemporary, but its not entirely clear) as long as he can’t see it!
And he also thinks that the job of a talented architect is to design houses which blend in with fisherman’s cottages, farmhouses, Georgian townhouses and 1960s bungalows…..
Report abuse
It’s not what you know it’s who you know in guernsey and if yor face fits and your bank balance is mega big then you will get what you want.
Report abuse
WELL SAID DAVE JONES AND ALL THOSE WITH VIEWS ACCEPTINGTHESE EYESORES PLEASE LEAVE OUR
BEAUTIFUL ISLAND AND DISSAPEAR TO YOUR
ACCEPTABLE CONCETE AND GLASS CITIES, YOU ARE ONLY LIVING HERE BECAUSE OUR ISLAND IS UNIQUE IN ITS
BEAUTY, HYPERCRITCAL.
Report abuse
I believe they should take more account of the finishes proposed at the planning stage. To allow seafront buildings in particular to be finished with wood, metal, varnished or painted surfaces that need very regular maintenance is folly. Inevitably building exteriors get neglected and will soon look dreadful regardless of design but granite just looks better as the years go by. Use some common sense, please!
Report abuse
BRILLIANT!!
Coco and Ray M-when all else fails – succumb to the old favourite of 1, “It’s who you know” nonsense, and 2, Ray – “”if you don’t like it clear off back to the UK” rubbish.
Well why would I do that when I, and I suspect the majority of these posts are Guernsey people through and through. Laughable comments from both of you!
Why stop there guys – the next one you can post is- “you rich English people coming here, stealing our jobs, erecting buildings I don’t like because it’s not like my Mum’s house, and taking our women”!!
Great stuff guys!
Report abuse
I for one welcome Ray M’s contribution to the debate.
Always nice to get some insight into the aesthetics of people who write in caps.
Hypercritical!
Report abuse
Having just read that Architects won e debate last night ove the so called “eye sores” I t hink this proves Guernsey,s heritage and period buildings are no longer being respected for whthat they are.I welcome change and fresh ideas for properties but as with everything it must be in the right place a modern glass building in a location such as Portlet would look out of place and only serves to show that these modernists have no affection for the old world charm some Guernsey properties offer
Report abuse
beanjar – one example of common sense is to use materials that are produced (relatively) locally and that are affordable.
Making new buildings from granite requires huge shipments to come from China, as we have none of our own anymore. Just because it was common sense 100 years ago does not mean that it is common sense now.
it is also worth remembering that this is not an “either / or” issue. I don’t think any advocate of modern design is saying that we should only build steel and glass buildings, or that any building should be inappropriate for its setting.
Report abuse
Ignoring some of the more ignorant comments on this thread I think the problem that some people have with the so called eyesores is that they are built to make a statement.
A statement like having hair extensions or driving an X5.
It’s like saying I’ve got class and breeding without actually having any. At all.
Its false and a lie.
The argument that these properties are more environmentally friendly is also a misnoma as you can bet your aunt Mabel that installed will be an Aga, swimming pool and “mood” lighting with the resultant carbon footprint equal to that of Birmingham.
And whats wrong with a bungalow? Nothing unless painted pink of course. For form and function they can’t be beaten.
Lots of glass a celebration of light eh? Tripe. If any of it faces anywhere from East round to West you’ll simply bake no matter how good the reflective properties – trust me on this I’ve got first hand experience!
So if you wear brown cords, sport ridiculous rectangular spectacles, think you’ve got class, drive a Merc GL V8, hold lots of drinks parties and think an enormous SMEG fridge is an essential lifestyle accessory you’ll probably like these “eyesores”.
I don’t.
Report abuse
As you say, Ned B, you can always tell when posters are losing the argument on these threads. They resort to conspiracy theories and rants against the UK/the English…. and to CAP it all they type in UPPER CASE!
I think James summed it up best when he said: “Glass is the celebration of light, and a view to the outside. If you wish to be shut in your granite coffin of darkness then be my guest.”
All I would add is a plea to take the vampiric Deputy Brouard and the howling, lupine Deputy Jones with you into your dreary, dismal crypts.
Report abuse
CAN ANYONE ANSWER THIS QUESTION THEN TO ALL YOU
EYESORE SUPPORTERS
WE KNOW THE FAMILY IN ST ANDREWS RECENTLY ASKED TO DEMOLISH THEIR HOME BECAUSE IT WAS BUILT A FEW
ODD METRES DIF AGAINST WHAT THE DEVELOMENT DEPT
ADVISED .YET THE SHAPE AND STYLE WAS STILL TRADITIONAL AND YET THE GLASSHOUSE DEVELOPMENTS
ARE STILL ALLOWED WHAT A TRAVERSTY TO HAPPEN WITHIN OUR ISLAND.
PS YOU DID NOT WIN THE DEBATE AS THERE ARE THOUSANDS OUT THERE TOTALLY AGAINST YOUR DEVELOPMENT DESIRES AFTER ALL MOST OF THE
PEOPLE ATTENDING THE MEETING WERE ARCHITECTS
DEFENDING THEIR ROLES.
LOOK AT THE PRESS TODAY REF THE CITY OF EDINGBOROUGH WOULD YOU DESIGN GLASS STRUCTURES
THERE.MAY BE WE ARE GOING BACK TO OUR OLD
CULTURES AFTER ALL WE HAD LOTS OF GLASSSTUCTURES BUT HAD TOMATOES GROWING IN THEM
SO MUCH FOR YOUR DESIGN TALENTS?
Report abuse
Andrew Ozanne made an excellent observation in last night’s debate. Guernsey Fisherman did not necessarily WANT small windows – that was all they could HAVE – because a granite lintel can only span a certain distance. Now steel can span much greater distances, why shouldn’t people have large windows if they want them?
Unless of course if the ‘I know better’ brigade deem them ‘incongruous’ (trans ‘I don’t like it but can’t think up a better argument than ‘I don’t like progress’, so I’ll hide behind ‘incongruous’).
In any case, – the Eyesore petitioners lost the debate. After being rude about several peoples houses, and in truth, rude about the owners.
Report abuse
Absolutely right Flying Scot, and rude as well about the perceived lifestyles of those of us who are perceived as eyesore lovers.
“What’s wrong with a bungalow?” one of anti-modernists asks. “For form and function they can’t be beaten.”
You must be joking mate. This island is blighted by awful bungalows, many of them forming hideous ribbon developments – and not by the odd, tastefully designed, sympathetically positioned glass fronted modern building.
Report abuse
Martino
The point I was trying to make is that the architects from those periods clearly had much more imagination than some of those today. In fact any week you care to choose you can switch on many TV channels and watch programmes on the real classic eras of architecture from the Tudors right through to the end of the Victorian era. Some stunning buildings may of which attract thousands of visitors every year. Bland soulless glass boxes don’t indicate to me a significant amount of thought or imagination. There are any number of English towns that have been decimated by poor and wholly inappropriate buildings designed I imagine by people who were more interested in money than aesthetic architectural quality. That is not what many off us want to see in Guernsey. Guernsey, people know architectural rubbish when they see it.
James
The glass boxes that have recently been built could have been designed by any six years old. As for whether architects are lacking imagination, I believe some of them are, don’t take my word for it just have a look at some of the monstrosities that have sprung up in this beautiful island in recent years and ask the people what they think of them. Of course you don’t have to copy the buildings of a particular era but if glass boxes are the best you can come up with after all that training, then some of you need either more training or a different profession. If the Georgian and Victorian architects lacked imagination as you suggest, why are many of their buildings listed for preservation? You won’t have to worry about longevity with this modern rubbish, as it won’t be around for very long. Also I don’t need to read about architectural principles to know what fits into a very special community such as this one. Doctor’s treatments are rarely visible to the rest of us and the patient is usually the only one who has to live with it. Not so bad architecture, we all have to live with that on a daily basis. In your last paragraph you refer to buildings on the UK, that is the point, what might fit in over there does not always fit into a small island community. I do like some of the modern buildings in Guernsey; I like Elizabeth house and the building that replaced the old Savoy of which its name escapes me at present. You are right about my children my grown up children do not agree with me on some aspects of local architecture so I do accept James that it can be a generational thing.
Neil Inder
I agree with you, how that development ever one an award escapes me? The Housing board were powerless to stop it, even if they had wanted to, which they didn’t. It was a GHA project not a States Housing development. I was in a minority of one on that occasion.
Mel
I have spoken to local architects on several occasions; in fact I have taken tea in Jamie Falla’s house a very pleasant young man who has different views to me and that is OK it nurtures debate on a fascinating subject. The 60’s bungalows we can do nothing about as they are already built but we can have an input into future buildings by making sure the compliment this island streetscapes and built environment. Also my objection isn’t all about buildings it is the awful clutter of street furniture and obsession of road traffic engineers who insist on putting up hundreds of useless signs telling us what to do. Finally good architecture that respects the surroundings that it is built in has nothing to do with the “complexities and aesthetics of a more contemporary style of architecture”. It has more to do with being acceptable to the community that has to live with it, its about the preservation of the one thing we have that is commented on most when people see Guernsey for the first time and that is what a real jewel it is. That is what is being wrecked in my view.
Blah
You never fail to amaze me; if it is wrong to want to protect Guernsey from to many outside influences then I am quite content to be wrong. I said some architects; you need to read more carefully. It also has nothing to do with the caliber of Guernsey planner’s verses UK planners; it has to do with the influences that they bring with them to the job, which in some cases are very un-Guernsey. And before you ask me what that means, if you don’t understand, then you will never get it. Yes I was born in England and I have spent all of my adult life in Guernsey, so perhaps you will tell me what your point is? If it is that you are upset that I constantly defend Guernsey and its way of life, then I will openly admit I do on every single occasion. I am not anti UK I am just very pro Guernsey and I want whatever the Guernsey people want. I better stop there before I am accused of touting for votes.
Report abuse
Apologies in advance readers for subjecting you to the eyesore of RAY M’s CAPS posting again.
“ALL THOSE WITH VIEWS ACCEPTINGTHESE EYESORES PLEASE LEAVE OUR BEAUTIFUL ISLAND AND DISSAPEAR TO YOUR
ACCEPTABLE CONCETE AND GLASS CITIES, YOU ARE ONLY LIVING HERE BECAUSE OUR ISLAND IS UNIQUE IN ITS
BEAUTY, HYPERCRITCAL.
Wrong Ray – I accept these “eyesores” and I am only living here because I was born here and have lived here all my life.
Report abuse
@Dave Jones – you are incorrect in your description of ‘imaginative’ architects from older times – Georgian architects sold houses out of pattern books – no imagination there!
It strikes me that much that is driving this is ‘fear of the new and veneration of the old’. The Victorians would laugh at us – if they didn’t like something they tore it down – in particular they despised Georgian architecture – who wants all that nonsense when you can have sensible sturdy red bricks!
Guernsey should look to the future and embrace the opportunities new technologies enable – stasis is death.
Report abuse
Flying Scott
I don’t think I am.
Report abuse
I should probably make this my final comment because this sort of debate is interminable. No amount of words will console. Views on architectural style, as with anything else, will differ from person to person and that’s what makes the world so wonderfully vibrant.
Though, I find myself provoked not by people’s dislike for modernism, but by the misinformed reasonings tending to be shown by the people holding this viewpoint. Arguments that granite is beautiful therefore everything should be granite is one such example. To build with granite, one must quarry locally or import. Given the lack of space Gsy will have to rely on salvage and reclamation. Arguments that planners should stop this kind of development is another example. To those who have taken the time to educate themselves on the subject and still dislike modernism, bravo. But it seems the most vocal are the least informed.
It still puzzles me why blame is placed on the architects and the planners. Planners would be operating out of their remit by passing judgement on design under current regulations. They must analyse each submission to see whether it is permissible in terms of the planning law set out for their jurisdiction. Nothing more. An architect is employed by a client. The client must choose their architect with whom they can enjoy a ‘meeting of minds’ to benefit from employing one. The client is paying for the use of the architect’s experience, expertise, design knowledge and imagination. If the client wants ‘modern’ then that is what must be designed as a solution for the client. Registered and chartered architects are bound by professional codes of conduct to owe a duty of care to the client. Guernsey is committing its own architectural suicide by not protecting the title ‘architect’, but that’s another story.
So why are architects blamed? I hesitate to voice my opinion on this for fear of backlash, but I would expect the answer is ignorance to the paragraph above. Every so-called eyesore has been commissioned by someone wanting precisely that. You have that power, and only a fool would go ahead with a build they’re not completely happy with.
Architects do make their own traps by vehemently defending modernism without, I feel, explaining why. You should realise that an architecture student will study the complete history of architecture from the time documented history began, a few thousand years BC, right up until the present date. Through the ages desire has changed which has led to architects designing new solutions to ever-changing lifestyle problems, incorporating new technology as it became viable. Five years are spent in full-time university education studying the array of solutions to various lifestyles throughout the breadth of history. Modernism is where we have arrived to today and the 21st century population is growingly free-thinking. This is why architects will defend it. Because to defamate it is to undermine the work of humankind throughout the ages. It cannot simply be dismissed with, ‘it’s glass/concrete/steel and I don’t like it.” If that’s your perception of modernism then I’m afraid you are sadly ill-informed. No educated architect will fail to find beauty in designs of old. By this I mean every architect who loves modernism, also loves what some call ‘traditional’. Architecture has always been striving for beauty.
New construction techniques allow quick and dirty construction cheaper than ever. Perhaps it is these Mr Penna should be campaigning against. But one would have to realise all of the issues involved. If an affordable solution (which is perhaps not as aesthetically pleasing as a more expensive design, but is equally as functional) can be made for a family in financial difficulty who need extra space (say, due to the death of a relative) but cannot afford to look for new property, should they be denied it?
Mr Jones, I respect your contribution to this thread. I agree generation may play a part, but only in vision, not in design. (And I certainly didn’t mean to imply anything to do with age!) As humans we all desire the same things, but in differing quantities regardless of age. Upbringing influences desires and values, and those who did not share that upbringing cannot appreciate the other’s. Buildings are listed for heritage purposes, to preserve that which is an example of something of its time, and, as such, is of architectural and archaeological interest. When the next wave of a design era decends upon us due to the availability of a material or process which once wasn’t viable and construction accellerates in favour of new designs, some of those buildings to which are so pleasantly referred to as ‘eyesores’ today will also be listed. For this reason some old concrete social housing blocks are listed.
I would like to think that the people who call a building an ‘eyesore’ simply haven’t found the beauty of that building yet.
If you wish to build traditional, I invite you to do so. If you wish to build modern, I invite you with equal enthusaism to also do so.
Report abuse
@Dave Jones
From ‘Georgian Architecture’ by James Steven Curl,
p.41 ‘the importance of architectural pattern books cannot be overstated….’
p.52 ‘professional pattern books…..were responsible for the dissemination of style…’
Do tell me where it is argued that Pattern Books were not important in Georgian architecture……
Report abuse
Been away for a bit.
Martino: Emotive but not nonsense from my perspective. My business takes me to far worse places than Torremelinos I’ll grant you, to around 35 cities all around Europe from Greece to Libya to Spain to Finland. Many of these places have the undoubtedly sad and obvious affliction of utter neglect for their heritage. Many of them do not have and indeed have never had the economic opportunity to preserve what has gone before. They’ve simply had to build to stay viable and “economically vibrant”. Those who have swept away the past are quite obviously utterly soulless as a result and are cases in point to a rich island such as ourselves with the means to control its destiny.
In my humble opinion, we should investigate the system of safeguards used by the German and Swiss states rather than search for a solution within, as without doubt some of their older townscapes are quite simply a joy to behold and architecturally innovative to boot- preserving an architectural congruity whilst pandering to the needs of modern business.
Report abuse
obviously i have upset paul le page is lower case better for you to read paul.
glad to know you are guerney especially with a surname le page.
we cant all think the same but i am probably more guern in thinking than you all i wish is to protect what we have and not moderise it like many wish to do thats why any tourist like the island plus many want to live here.
i am proud of my views and will keep fighting
for my views and for all those like our dave jones probably the best politician we have ever had intelligent thinking .
Report abuse
I’m no more an expert on architecture than on anything else, but I’ve worked in a property development company, and am an avid follower of various programmes about the subject.
Some of the wealth of ‘modern architecture’ out there in the world in stunning, diverse and beautiful, some suits it’s surroundings, some I’m not so sure about.
I know, we all have to move on, but sorry, I’m with DJ here, based on results, IMO, I would say that the majority of our supposedly talented local architects seem incapable of invariably producing nothing other than boxes made of glass, that don’t fit into their environment, again and again, which is just boring, boring, boring.
Report abuse
Thanks for you post Ray, much easier to read! :-)
You didn’t upset me personally mate, I was using myself as an example to point out that stereotyping people who don’t have a problem with these “eyesores” as “foreigners” is not based on fact.
Actually stereotyping in general is fundamentally flawed yet for some reason it remains common practice in local debate – just take a look around this forum to see what I mean! Oh, and before I sound all self-righteous about it, I’ll take the plank out of my own eye first and admit that I too am prone to this flawed practice and have to consciously make the effort not to engage in it.
As for being “more guern thinking” than me I think you’re probably right. I love the island and its unique culture too; I would just say that, although I admire some of the “guern” traits and indeed have them myself, we should be careful as individuals and a community not to cut off our noses to spite our face by clinging like limpets to practices well past their sell by date. Perhaps as a community we should learn to pick our battles better?
Report abuse
PS Ray – I should point out (as I have done before on this forum) that I am actually half-English….perhaps that explains it after all!! ;-)
Report abuse
Flying Scott
I am not arguing about pattern books, I could care less about pattern books or the quotes from them, that is your argument not mine and you are free to make it. I am only interested in what fits for this community and who is deciding what that is.
James
Your last post was a very good, intelligent analysis of your profession and I respect you for it. I do try to keep an open mind on some of these buildings and I have changed my mind on one or two. For instance the RBS building at the bottom of the Avenue by the town roundabout looked hideous in its construction stage but now it’s been there a while I sort of get it. It has grown on me and I am much less hostile now that we have had it for 2 or 3 years than I was at the beginning. There are also a couple of buildings in the upper Le Trouchot that replaced the old wharf side warehouses that I remember from the early seventies, that have fitted in to the streetscape of that part of town. On another issue the Naval mast on the roundabout, I wasn’t sure about that either but now I would miss it if it wasn’t there, it has added something, that is of course if you can add anything to a dull boring roundabout.
Report abuse
@James
“I would like to think that the people who call a building an ‘eyesore’ simply haven’t found the beauty of that building yet”
Or, it isn’t finished (Vazon)or isn’t built yet (Portelet)….but they still know they won’t like it! Not what I’d call open minded!
@Dave Jones – your argument (as I understood it) was that previous times’ architects showed greater creativity – all I was pointing out was that Georgian architects ‘creativity’ largely consisted of copying out of Pattern books (one reason for the great architectural consistency of the period) – but hardly ‘creative’!
Report abuse
The idea that some time these poor designs become Icons is somewhat flawed,they only compete with contempary by being different.Two friends wished to sell their creations within weeks of moving in, there is of course truth to be learnt, in the saying, if you dont compete, be different,These supposed modern designs are not new ,certainly one near a south coast car resembles “Teds” the gay hairdresser who designed his own in Valkarie rd Southend in the 70′s . Hand out some Licenses import Quality !
Report abuse
I don’t see what your problem is Glasseyesore. I don’t think we need a German or Swiss system to protect our architecturally important buildings because we’re doing that well enough already.
The bottom line is that all towns and cities have to evolve and grow. The alternative is to let them stagnate. The new, glass fronted structure by Clifton is (as I said in my original post) a superb, modern addition to the Town skyline that blends in extremely well with the neighbouring older buildings.
It’s going to be the same story with the replacement for the house at Portelet pictured above. IMO this existing structure is quite hideous and incongruous and totally out of keeping with its natural surroundings. Just look at the way it stands out like a red sore thumb in front of all that greenery. It’s quite an eyesore in fact.
I am confident that the glass fronted design that will replace it will end up being far more in keeping with the area as well as being a much better place in which to live.
Report abuse
Flying Scot
Of course but someone with talent had to be creative enough to draw the examples for the book in the first place. Imitation is the finest form of flattery. They new real talent when they saw it and so do I. I am seeing precious little of it in the glass box designs we are told are progressive architecture, I also smile when I see all theses curved roofs, its almost as if one architect comes back from the curvy roof school of architecture and that is what every office and block of flats have to look like. along with something that looks like a row of wooded pallets nailed onto the front of the buildings, you know the cedar cladding you see everywhere.
Report abuse
Martino,
Well said. Lets face facts. Messers Penna et al (in fairness Deputy Brouard has been going on about this longer) only kicked off when they realised they’d lost the argument about Portelet and the owners were going to build the design they’d got approved originally, rather than the ‘compromise’ they had tried to work with local residents but got rejected by Planning.
The Clifton house has been there for several years (~5), but only NOW has become an ‘eyesore’ – how come no one spotted it earlier?
I wonder if Mr Penna plans to stand for the States? I wouldn’t be at all surprised!
Report abuse
Somebody called Admiral Park an eyesore,maybe they would have preferred it as it was?Old corrugated iron buildings,gas holders etc.
Report abuse
i agree at last with i le pages comment of admiral park in a way.
Report abuse
Who are we to decide what building style is right or wrong ?
At some point just about every building on the island was new and different to that which had gone before ….
Incongruos seems to mean to many here “doesn’t match what we already have” …. well guess what, what we already have was therefore incongruos when it was built !!! Should the Victorians not have built Victorian terraces ? Should we have stuck with Gerorgian facades on everything ? Perhaps every building on the island should be Tudor ? Or medieval ? Why did we ever move on from Iron Age roundhouses ? In fact, what was wrong with caves ? ( at least they blended in completely with the surroundings )
Throughout history people have discovered new technologies and materials and construction techniques and applied them to their buildings. What is important is to preserve what went before – not stopping progress and innovation …. without which we wouldn’t have the very style of building many seem to want to impose on us all.
Report abuse
Martino
I agree the march of time means a certain kind of change is unstoppable, but my argument would be that architectural change does not by definition drive the economic “growth” or “evolution” of a town. Sure, it’s an indicator in some circumstances but not always. The Swiss and the Germans at least realise the true value of looking after something that’s irreplaceable, and if Guernsey is not to become a pastiche of cultureless Americana, I believe we’d do well to start thinking likewise.
Toby
I think it’d be fair to say none of what has gone before has made such a large jump style-to-style across the ages as the style in question. I’m not saying don’t progress. I don’t think we should “stand still” as houses will have particular technological challenges, especially those based around energy consumption, in the future. All I’m really saying is we have a unique character in Guernsey and should try hard to preserve as best we can, using new technologies if appropriate.
Report abuse
i think some have lost the plot. A certain deputy who is involved has over 100 photos of those he personally has chosen to be banashed of style. And then there are those that jump on the bandwagon for the extra cursory vote.
Its time to move on. We are not all fishermen living in cottages, or farmers living in granite homes thrashing wheat by hand…those days my friend have long gone.
None of us believe that preservation of our heritage is to be trifled with.
We have some truly outstanding buildings that are crying to be saved. Surely that is what is most important. To treasure what we really have and let our future generations express what is important to them as those did before us. There is a building in our town in the Arcade with gorgeous curved glass and nothing is being done. It’s glass is shattered and the doorway is used as a garbage dump. That to me is truly an eyesore. Where are the people standing up and crying out for something to be done here?
Report abuse
I’m sorry Glasseyesore but architectural advances DO drive the growth and evolution of our towns and cities – in just the same way that technological and engineering advances drive the evolution of the cars we drive.
I suspect if you had your way and you were able to extend your restrictive, rooted-in-the-past philosophy to the motor industry we’d all be driving around in old Capris and Allegros, or even in Model Ts?
Also, what gives you or anyone else the right to decide when it is ‘appropriate’ to use new technologies?
I think Toby is correct. We’d never have got out our caves if we’d had people like you dictating when it is ‘appropriate’ to use the techniques and technologies of the present day. Places like the Guggenheim in Bilbao and the Gherkin in London would never have been built and nor would that excellent new building in Clifton. And if you’re looking for a ‘cultureless pastiche’ to moan about look no further than all those horrible, ticky tacky 60s and 70s bungalows that blight our island (including the one in the picture above). Now those really are eyesores!
Report abuse
I think the problem is that when people hear the words ‘modern’ or ‘contemporary’ in reference to architecture, they think of the trend of the last century where the only concern was utility, with no thought for aesthetics. Fortunately this trend has more or less passed, and contemporary architecture is often quite beautiful now.
We have a beautiful and architectural tradition in Guernsey; the Guernsey granite farmhouse for example, many of which have been built in recent years to traditional designs and look wonderful. But how boring would it be if there were nothing else?!
One of my favourite views in London is near Liverpool Street – there’s a stunning 17th century church, with the Gherkin standing behind it, and the juxtaposition is quite breathtakingly beautiful, and appropriate in a great city with such creative talent and unique history. Guernsey is great too, and I for one do not want it to become a museum piece.
Report abuse
Anna – I completely agree! I cannot count how many beautiful old buildings I’ve seen on the island which have been left to crumble; some of them are quite heartbreaking.
And in my eyes, none of the buildings which have made the news for being ‘eyesores’ in recent years can compare to the hideous, soulless 60′s and 70′s concrete boxes we see all over the island.
Protect the rural areas from over development and protect the beautiful heritage we have… don’t be afraid of progress.
Who else loves that house on the south coast, with the spiral roof? We used to walk past it often and called it the snail shell house. Hardly traditional, but very beautiful!
Report abuse
“I agree the march of time means a certain kind of change is unstoppable, but my argument would be that architectural change does not by definition drive the economic “growth” or “evolution” of a town.”
Glasseyesore, I’d be interested in the “definition” you have to quantify such a claim.
Report abuse
James
On the contrary – prove to me that Architectural change drives growth on Guernsey and it’s Martino’s claim that’s quantified, not mine. I think you’d find that hard to do.
To spell it out more clearly- our finance industry has “arrived” because of our tax status, not our particular styles of existing buildings. That was the point I was making and the very existance of the finance industry here is proof I’m correct. In extremis- We did not build Admiral’s Park before finance arrived- it was a request of existing and not prospective industry. QED?
Martino
Cars are a machine with an ever increasing demand for efficiency as their fuel source gets more scarce. If we were still running model T’s there’d actually be fewer cars than now as they do about 10mpg. Less people would be able to afford to run them. The same isn’t true at all of architecture which is the flaw in your argument. They are totally physically different forms of “progression”. One is heavily dictated by physical efficiency and ingenuity whilst the other is by and large an artistic effort. I could design you a Georgian style house that was just as energy efficient and cost effective as a modern house- but by your argument that’s not “progress” as it’s not different? I simply don’t follow where you’re going with that. Art vs. engineering and the distinction of the two doesn’t seem your strong point.
My argument for trying to keep the aesthetic Georgian feel of town would be that ultimately we are where we are. We aren’t Santa Cruz, we aren’t Ibiza, Capri or Kos. We’ve a rich vein of history connected with these properties which is genuinely seen as valuable by a large proportion of the rest of the world. You accuse me of being slightly blinkered but, well, right back at you I’m afraid. I’m selfishly and selflessly trying to preserve value. It’s terribly shortsighted to allow any one individual to dictate his or her version of the lastest fad. We live in a far more fame-obsessed society and it’s doubtless a reflection of the times that architects are willing to make a name for themselves standing out, regardless of the true cost to the rest of us, years down the line.
Report abuse
Glasseyesore – I think what you’re missing, or rather choosing to ignore is that your opinions are just that – opinions, and if the debate or this thread is anything to go by, you are in the minority.
Report abuse
I think my car analogy still stands up pretty well Glasseyesore. You continue to argue for Model T Fords, or at least vehicles that look like Model Ts, but powered by the latest technology and engineering. Look at your last post. You’ve said as much yourself.
“I could design you a Georgian style house that was just as energy efficient and cost effective as a modern house…”
No you could not. You could design me a modern home, ergonomic and energy efficient, that LOOKS like a genuine Georgian period house but in reality it would be just a facade – like your entire argument.
Come clean Glasseyesore. You want to see a Town preserved in aspic. One with no modern buildings whatsoever, even when they are superbly and sympathetically placed like the one at Clifton.
The Georgian era is your ‘Year Zero’ and you seem to admit this when you talk about “My argument for trying to keep the aesthetic Georgian feel of town..”
Well, my own argument and the argument of the majority of posters here (as Mel rightly says) is for trying to keep the aesthetic feel of town. Ditch your Georgian blinkers Glasseyesore and come into the 21st century. You’ll find some bad designs, sure, but you’ll also stumble across some pretty damn excellent ones as well.
Report abuse
Martino
A Model T, even powered by the latest engineering, would still have an unworkably large drag-coefficient. It is a totally non-sensical soloution to the problem of building a new car in 2010. If the civil engineering exists in 2010 to be able to economically preserve what many see as valuable in a certain style of architecture (totally different engineering problem), why not attempt it for the sake of identity/congruity/collective value? Even if it is a facade?
If I have any problem at all with the latest efforts it is that they are so vastly different as regards appearance as to make the aesthetic point of living in Guernsey that you claim to hold so dear diluted. If you really want to get a feel for what I’m talking about there was a great program last night on BBC4 where a certain ex navy chap made a superb quote that’s relevant to all this…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b007wv12/Great_British_Holiday_Rock/
“…houses that wouldn’t look out of place on footballer’s wives…”
…sums up how I feel, if we’re to express opinions. Don’t even get me started on the aesthetic values of BMW X5′s. ;)
Mel
Is the debate on this thread really anything to go by though? I’m afraid you’ve uderestimated my imagination, sorry. Despite the seemingly large amount of yea’s to new architecture on this page it’s undeniable there are some with alot to lose if planning applications are reined in. On top of this, I suspect there are plenty of people who might express a mild view that the current new crop of architecture cheapens the island but quite frankly they feel they have nothing to gain by joining the argument. They aren’t part of the building/architecture/banking money-go-round, and probably live a much more fulfilled life than us hammering away on this internet page! Many more will just leave for more pleasant places. Ultimately people will of course vote with their feet on Guernsey’s “new look” Mel, but saying things are inevitable is the easiest thing to do in the world, as no one cares if you’re proved wrong.
Report abuse
My retort disappeared so I’ll try again.
Mel
Ever stopped to wonder who’s in control of the debate and why? There are vested interests in the building/banking/architectural money-go-round that will do their best to stop a certain view. I hazard there are many with my opinion, but they simply can’t be faffed talking about it. After all, what does the average 60s bungalow owner particularly have to gain by sticking their neck out on this one? My view is that it is incredibly easy to call change inevitable, as in the end no one will seek to correct you if you’re wrong about the magnitude. Turning Guernsey into an imitation of other areas of the world is not, in my opinion, inevitable or necessary.
Martin
Hyperbolae. I like old Guernsey farmhouses and caves too. I like new buildings built in an organic and sustainable way using natural materials. I have no real great love for Model T’s and I’m not head-over-heels with Georgian terraces either. The point was to explain to you that the engineering necessity in 2010 for glass and steel structures is a misnomer. They are an aesthetic solution to people who, if I might quote a gentleman on the BBC4 Holidays in Britain program last night, like houses and buildings “that wouldn’t look out of place on footballer’s wives…”.
They are cheap, they are in some cases horrendously unimaginative (or read cost-effective in the short term) and are a blight in as much as once one is built it justifies the creation of another next door. Convince me otherwise and we could put this to rest, but I’ve seen too many places around the world succumb to just such a problem to follow your current rationale.
Report abuse
Glasseyesore -
I agree that there are many people out there who have mild views against the architecture in question, there are equally many people who have mild views in favour of it, and many many more, I’m sure, who don’t care at all about the subject.
This thread may not be the most accurate cross section of society but it is never the less a representation of the public’s views – I think you are leaning towards delusion if you are to argue that this thread is about the loud minority.
There was a public debate and the outcome came out in favour of continuing to allow the architecture you so dislike. What more proof do you need? As someone from the press pointed out, these things are usually very well attended by the protestors, that it was also very well attended by those opposing the issue rather proves that there are many many people out there who disagree with you.
This isn’t at all about resigning ourselves to the inevitable, it’s about rejoicing in having the freedom to move with the times and not become an island that is stagnant.
And I think I need to reiterate the fact that your opinions are just that – your opinions and you are in a minority.
Report abuse
You can certainly hazard that there are many with your opinion who can’t be faffed to talk about it and equally there are many who disagree and can’t be faffed to talk about it. You can’t say that you are well supported because you imagine there are people out there who do!
Of course the debate was defended be people with an interest in the business – that’s not to say it was controlled- an argument was put forward and the audience took a vote. It just didn’t come out in favour of your opinions, and I’m really not surprised by the “of course it wasn’t a clear representation” line you’re taking – it didn’t come out in your favour. You’re coming off as the sore loser.
And yes progress and change is inevitable, and hoorah for that!
It does still remain a matter of OPINION about whether these buildings are eyesores or not. To dictate to others on the basis of a personal opinion is wrong.
Report abuse
I’ll try to draw a line under this now Glasseyesore. I love the sharp lines and the minimalism of glass and steel structures well designed. To dismiss them all as ‘cheap’ is ridiculous. The only thing that is cheap is your cheap ‘footballers wives’ jibe. It’s ironic too because the wealthy Cheshire chavs probably would go for some of your mock Georgian rather than glass and steel.
You ask me to convince you that steel and glass structures are not “a blight in as much as once one is built it justifies the creation of another next door”. Well, the Clifton building is a case in point. That one was built a few years ago now and it hasn’t led to any more popping up alongside.
I think Mel is right and that your own perspective, at the end of the day, is just an opinion. You’re not Guernsey’s sole arbiter as to what is aesthetically good/bad/indifferent and nor am I so let’s just leave it to others to make up their own minds now.
Report abuse
Mel
Sorry, I don’t buy your take on the fact that people are exclusively on either side of this debate for similar reasons, ie, ones of opposing taste. I would again urge you to consider that there are those with a great deal to gain in monetary terms on one side of the argument from the continuation of building-for-building’s sake within Guernsey. It’s their livelihoods that are at stake, with all the associated conflict of architectural conscience.
Martino
I don’t think the argument that the clifton development hasn’t spawned more similar properties stands up to macroscopic scrutiny. There simply aren’t that many opportunities to get build plots in Guernsey but when opportunities do arise we are seeing mostly modern properties go up now.
I also think that Mel’s dogmatic pursuit of “opinion” can be aimed at that last post of yours aswell. If two opposing parties have opposite tastes then sadly it’s the power of the chequebook that is the final arbiter. There is currently squillions being pumped into both traditional and modern builds around Britain and Europe, but ultimately the short term buck is to be made in the latter, and the builders know this. The shame is that I can vouch a well built facade lasts far longer than a glass/steel structure and I suspect the IDC members concerned will have long disappeared from the public eye once the time comes to demolish them and the next footballers fad (couldn’t resist) gets ushered in…
Report abuse
Okay Glasseyesores, I’ll leave it like that. You have the final word in our little debate. Martino
Report abuse
I’m just curious to know, glasseyesores, do you or do you not agree that an “eyesore” is defined by personal opinion.
And if the answer is yes – who are you to say your opinion is more important than anyone elses?
Report abuse
I’m just curious to know, glasseyesores, do you or do you not agree that an “eyesore” is defined by personal opinion.
And if the answer is yes – who are you to say your opinion is more important than anyone else’s?
It is dogmatic pursuit because you seem incapable of answering that question.
Report abuse
Martino, ta. Truce it is.
Mel, I think all it takes is one person to honestly and truly think a thing is an eyesore for it to be, by definition, an eyesore.
I am a humble person. I put forward the truncated version of my particular observations whilst travelling extensively and regularly with my work. I confess – this might amount to an opinion, mea culpe.
I’ve tried to give dispassionate reasons above as to why this architectural method should be treated with caution in Guernsey. It isn’t 100% my opinion – it is however the observation of myself and more notable others. At no stage have I suggested “I like old houses” as being good enough a reason for the rest of you to attempt to preserve the past. I would however if nothing else fervently point you to investigate the experiences of other areas (Monte Carlo, Nice, parts of Rome, Milan, Portugal and Spain, certain Greek islands spring to mind.) and the resultant architectural chaos and universal public critical disdain that followed so as to change your mind and make my opinion that you seemingly find so offensive totally defunct. Nothing would give me greater pleasure in the realms of this discussion. I care passionately about Guernsey and its ongoing success as a centre of both culture and business. Large, cheaply built, gaudy constructions of steel and glass are, in my humble opinion, quite irrelevant to that success in the foreseeable future.
Report abuse
This is my last post because its gone on too long!
But are you serious? One person thinking something is an eyesore makes it an eyesore? Do you really expect that to stand up as a rational argument? I love the building in Clifton that you call an eyesore. I believe hand on heart it is a beautiful addition to the skyline. So by your argument your opinion is more important than mine?
What I love about all this is that when messrs Mgghee and Penner handed in their eyesore petition, apparently, the reason the number of signatures was so underwhelming was because it had had to compete with the incinerator campaign (despite being REALLY well publicised by the Guernsey Press
)
Mr Penna maintained that after all it was all about opening it up to debate – but if the debate at Beau Se Jour was lost, well that was because it wasn’t fairly represented.
And if on the only decent Guernsey online forum where the public get a say on it, the views come out clearly in favour of the architects (on the last two similarly themed threads also) well of course that doesn’t count because, what was it? oh that’s right, only people with a financial interest in it are the ones that are expressing their opinions…
Wake up and smell the coffee fellas!
Report abuse
A building that looks like 2 glass portocabins, one on top of the other, in a quiet country lane, where the only other buildings are large farmhouses set amongst fields IS an eyesore….. Whereas if it were on an industrial estate, or set amongst modern developments it may not be. simples!
Report abuse
For all the posters against modern contemporary architecture it doesn’t just stop at steel and glass.
I agree that the materials used have to be sympathetic to the surroundings. If you research modern architecture you will find some cutting edge designs from early to mid 20th century that wouldn’t look out of place today.
A steel and glass structure at Portlet probably wouldn’t fit in to the surroundings well. However a low wooden and glass building would probably be quite aesthetically pleasing in that area.
Example –
http://www.trendir.com/house-design/forest-home-natural-house-1.jpg
In my opinion one of the worse buildings in Guernsey is the apartment complex just off Bulwer Avenue. Probably around 7-10 years old now? As for the Barclays castle…well!
Report abuse
Not really Simon – going by Glasseyesores argument: An eyesore is an eyesore if one person believes it to be. Therefore a beautiful building is a beautiful building if one person believes it to be. Whichever the building is you are thinking of someone has built it because they believe it be beautiful.
It really isn’t cut and dry is it? As a subject for debate this is fascinating, but the only thing that remains grounded in FACT is that it is all about opinion. Lets live and let live.
Report abuse
Sorry Mel you’re just way out there on two counts.
Firsty the “You Say” forum under community-online forums on this website is much more evenly balanced than this page, although I’m doing my best to even this one up. Funny old thing but I haven’t contributed to other threads as I don’t have the time.
Secondly you’ve just more or less stated people build buildings for beauty’s sake alone. I can’t abide by that. Self aggrandisement, practicality, necessity, profit and shelter are other obvious reasons any one individual might put up a building. If these reasons are more important, then paying an architect to do the “thinking about beauty” on their behalf seems reasonable. It’s got to get past the IDC after all? My problem is that the ensuing briefs are destructive. The solutions are self-promoting and in no way are we headed towards what commonly counts as collective beauty for our urban planning. I’d further Mel that as much as you love your Clifton development there are just as many who live close by in it’s shadow that loathe it. By a measure of your tastes you’d further it’d be a good idea to cut a swathe through Bath’s royal crescent and erect a dedication to Frank Lloyd Wright slap bang in the middle…”because I like his buildings.”
I’m sure you see where I’m coming from. Diversity is a great thing in some contexts, sure, but it removes identity in others. You’re either happy with that or you’re not. My point is that there is no pressing economic need for us to do so. Our “Royal Crescent”, to continue the analogy, is well known and loved worldwide- to break it up requires only the existence of landowners who care little for it, with free rein from the IDC. The result I would hazard as an opinion is that we will all be poorer for it.
Report abuse
Sadly, what you continue to miss is that there are plenty of people who do not believe that putting a modern building on our town’s skyline is a bad thing. There are plenty who believe it to be a good thing, that it adds interest and beauty to the skyline and shows that Guernsey can move with the times. Again it boils down to personal opinion. Your opinion is that Guernsey will be poorer for it, mine that we are richer for it.
Neither of us is right, and neither of us can tell other people they are wrong for thinking differently.
I’m sure you’ll want to have the last word, but I am definitely done!
Report abuse
mel
Did you read the wikiwotsitsname defenition of an eyesore yet?
Report abuse
Mel
That there are multiple opinions on the matter is not in question – you’re just choosing to ignore those opinions on your side of the argument that might be held for reasons other than “beauty”. As I’ve said before, these opinions risk far greater material consequences in the event of losing the debate.
I’d also further suggest that the experiment in modern buildings is not a demonstration to the world that we can “move with the times”. If anything it shows we’re capable of making the same selfish mistakes in overdevelopment and modern architecture that other areas have made countless times previous over countless ages.
It’s also rather interesting you slipped “a modern building” rather than “modern buildings” plural. Are you endorsing my view that a slow, organic progression of architectural style rather than a wholesale free-for-all change is preferable? If so, what mechanism would you propose introducing at a governmental level to police this, devoid of back-handers and vested interest?
I’d also like to know why no public outpourings of grief have been directed at our lack of modernity over the last few years. Our inability to look like the latest and greatest thing in architectural college doesn’t seem to have evoked quite such strong passions or newspaper headlines short of “they won’t let me build a conservatory”. I’d forward the simple reason that people are very happy with Guernsey the way it is, ta. After all, why else would they still be here?
Report abuse
Dave,
100% agree with your very positive post. Opinionated or not, I quite like the look of that wee place despite it being neither a pastiche nor a facade nor Georgian. Shock horror. Its beauty is definitely unpresumptuous. :)
The Barclays place just goes to show how unnatural and gaudy retro-architecture can look when out of context. Maybe people will find its remains 1000′s of years in the future, mis-date it by 200 years and conclude the 18th century Guern was capable of astounding feats of engineering. Our own Pyramid of Cheops perched on a windswept rock if you will?
Report abuse