Bob the Builder

One of my many little obsessions, i.e subjects I can get very angry about without actually knowing much about, in architecture. I think there is a great debate to be had on the relative merits of different buildings but it is a subject that often seems to stifle proper debate. On one side with the majority who prefer, in fact adore, classical design and view any building built after 1920 as an expression of function rather than having any aesthetic qualities worthy of comment. Then there is the much smaller group of people, who tend to be involved in architecture, who view modern buildings as paragons to mankind's brilliance and who view the majority as backward looking conservatives who clearly do not understand the beauty which they are presented with.

I like to think there is a happy balance to be struck between the two. Birmingham is an ugly city, there is no hiding from that fact to pretend otherwise is just plain weird. It highlights how architects can get urban design incredibly wrong. Many of its modern buildings are impressive structures that if stood alone would look bold, innovative and yet have a certain majesty for example: The Bull Ring

















Unfortunately collectively these buildings make Birmingham look like a complete mess, because it has seemingly has no overall structure holding the city together. I just wish that planners would work more closely with architects to develop an urban environment that has a level of symmetry. Beauty is often not so much to do with the design of one building but in the way it fits into its surroundings. The best example i can think of to illustrate requires a short hop to the North and into Edinburgh, the capital of Scotland. The Royal Museum of Scotland, below, sorry about the picture quality, is an example of how to work within an older street setting and yet produce a beautiful and functional building.


Let this be an example to those who seek to once again re-develop Birmingham.