BLUEMOMENT

This is not a political rant.

I had a tour round the Scottish Parliament yesterday. Most impressive building (and yes, I know, it damn well should be for what it cost). Apparently the best outside view is from Arthur's Seat, but I thought I would leave that for a drier day. Walking past the outside at street level gives little real impression.

Inside is quite stunning. The debating chamber in particular is both a fine architectural space and a practical working area.

Anyway, I reckon that Connelly got it all wrong. It's not a "wee pretendy parliament" at all but actually a rather fine building.

It's a disgrace. So much money wasted on an office for a gang of useless lying scum bags

No planks dangling from the roof?

.
I liked the building when we looked round it a few years ago.

Money has been spent on worse things - like the useless twisted helter-skelter in the Olympic park - wtf was that about?



Apparently it cost £22.7m - for a functionless structure that had a useful life of four weeks. Compared to that Holyrood looks like quite good value.

Its turning into a rant....the thread not the rather magnificent helter skelterie thingie

sahona wrote:No planks dangling from the roof?

Oh, lots of planks hanging from the roof ("an acknowledgement of the hammer beam tradition"), but they all seem to be now securely attached.

Nick wrote:.
I liked the building when we looked round it a few years ago.

Money has been spent on worse things - like the useless twisted helter-skelter in the Olympic park - wtf was that about?



Apparently it cost £22.7m - for a functionless structure that had a useful life of four weeks. Compared to that Holyrood looks like quite good value.

Until looking at the model and having it explained I hadn't realised the significance of some of the shapes incorporated into the Parliament building - the tree branch spreading from Holyrood Park, for instance. I haven't seen any explanation of what the Olympic helter skelter is meant to represent: the red metal part looks to me vaguely like bits of a crashed airship, but I'm sure that's not the idea. Anyone know? (I assume "it's symballic" as my friends from NI would say. )

wully wrote:It's a disgrace. So much money wasted on an office for a gang of useless lying scum bags

I couldn't agree more! And just how much is the whole jing-bang continuing to cost us each and every year?

Instead if independence, what we need to do is sack the lot of them, along with their army of civil(?) servants, secretaries, political researchers and all the other hangers-on. While we're about it, let's get rid of all the European commissioners, MEP's and their army as well.

Save the country a fortune, and we'd soon pay off the national debt.


Let's face it, the only growth industry of late has been politics!

[/rant]

+1

.
Just two comments lads. Firstly, like it or not devolution is here to stay.

And secondly - as Ash is fond of reminding us, THIS IS A SAILING FORUM

DaveS wrote:Inside is quite stunning. The debating chamber in particular is both a fine architectural space and a practical working area.

I visited some time ago, partly to see why it cost so much. What struck me was just how difficult it would have been to get the curved 6" (?) diameter structural beams to lie all true. How did they do it other than by having a few spares around?

It looks quite impressive; even the rather mean windows look better with time.

Worth looking at the Welsh chamber which fulfills much the same function at a fraction of the cost. Positioning it next to the Welsh National Opera house makes it "Welsh" if you see what I mean, whereas you are pretty constantly reminded that Holyrood is a Spanish inspiration which doesn't quite sit easily with Scottish architecture.

ParaHandy wrote: Worth looking at the Welsh chamber which fulfills much the same function at a fraction of the cost. Positioning it next to the Welsh National Opera house makes it "Welsh" if you see what I mean, whereas you are pretty constantly reminded that Holyrood is a Spanish inspiration which doesn't quite sit easily with Scottish architecture.

I have yet to visit Cardiff. Some day, maybe.

I'm not sure about the last bit. The principle architect was certainly Spanish, but I don't think that necessarily makes the building Spanish. There are quite a number of references to Scotland embedded in the structure. I think the main difficulty is simply that it is a new building and the overwhelming majority of good Scottish architecture is traditional. FWIW I think that arguably the new parliament building has more in common with the best traditional Scottish architecture than has, say, Cumbernauld town centre.

THIS IS A SAILING FORUM

I sailed in there earlier this year and didn't find it such an attractive anchorage.
Seems like someone had paid too much attention to aesthetics and not enough to function. And the marina fees to pay for it all are pretty high.
But if it became the national marina, where berths for serious sailors were available, and sensible sialing discussion took place, it might do.

DaveS wrote:FWIW I think that arguably the new parliament building has more in common with the best traditional Scottish architecture than has, say, Cumbernauld town centre.

Indeed.

DaveS wrote:I'm not sure about the last bit. The principle architect was certainly Spanish, but I don't think that necessarily makes the building Spanish....... FWIW I think that arguably the new parliament building has more in common with the best traditional Scottish architecture than has, say, Cumbernauld town centre.

Well ... the opera house associates what the Welsh value, they can sing. Holyrood built next to an 18 hole golf course?

There's a bit of Miralles in Cumbernauld?