I think it’s a usually self-fulfilling prophecy though. Canary Wharf is essentially an ugly building, but Londoners don’t think so. It’s good and useful, so many people now see beauty within.

I’ll think about it more, then get back to you…

I did go to the Opera House though. I think that its mostly beautiful because of its location though. That near identical building in Glasgow isn’t as popular after all.

Does Scotland need a similar sort of thing to boost it’s economy?

Some might argue that the Scottish Parliament will fit that bill. But we’ll wait and see it before we judge it.

You might also say that this is like the old marketing thing. Like the fact that when Babycham was first brought out it was sold as a cheap big bottle of bubbly-type thing, and it flopped. So they recalled them all, put them in much smaller bottles and increased the price, and it took off. Is that the same thing? I’m not sure. I don’t think my mind is working.

The Sydney Opera House is seen as a thing of beauty, but actully drains money, leaks, and is a triumph of form over function.

Leaks money? Not right, just a quick look at the home page and you’ll find the financial statement for the last year and you’ll see that it’s making money.

Sure it cost a lot of money to build but that money was made back within 2 years. And as far as a victory of form over function then, that’s something I have to discuss in my essay so I’ll leave it for now, but it depends on your view of the intended function. Was it supposed to be purely a good theatre? Or was it intended to do something much bigger? Probably the latter, otherwise why would they have opted for such a grand design?

The Lloyds Building, well, it was ground breaking, otherwise how would they have built the foundations?

Fixed! hopefully. it was all to do with the sanitize setting obviously! a new feature in MT so that’s why quotes used to work and then mysteriously stopped when i last upgraded MT

My impression, gained from a few sources over the years, was that it’s maintenance costs were exorbitant, largely because the structure wasn’t the best in terms of wear and tear - like the Forth Rail Bridge.

Boom boom. Innovative then. And considered ugly when built. Not now tho.

And the accidentally anonymous comment up above was me too. I tried to link it to a previous entry you had about how you found Torness Nuclear Power station to be an attractive building and it didn’t work.

it’s costs are huge but so are it’s takings.

i was talking to dad about the bridge on Friday. He saying the Forth Road Bridge (that he confusingly called the Forth Bridge, tsk) looked good because of it’s obvious functionality, while I was agreeing with him (thinking of the rail bridge). When he went on to talk about the (real) Forth Bridge he said that he thought it wasn’t very aesthetically pleasing, but we’re told it is, so we belive it.

I’m paraphrasing here, and quite badly, but I think that was about what you were saying wasn’t it Dad? If it’s not it’s your own fault for cutting the conversation short to go and listen to ‘The Archers’!

Dad’s comments are odd, in that I disagree with him, yet he backs my argument that ugly objectss that work gain beauty in they eyes of their admiriing beholders.

I like both bridges, the contrast they provide, the elegance of the road bridge, the three diamonds of the rail bridge, i find pleasing. But is there an element of finding their functionality pleasing in there? I don’t know?

(It’s over, 6-0, ugh)

I don’t have anything against the Sydney Opera House per se. But it is a buiding that was designed for form, not function, that was my point.

In summary, my argument boils down to this
buildings that work gain beauty in the eye of the beholder.
The converse isn’t necessary true. A truly beautiful, iconic building can buck the trend. But not always. take my work place for example.