Achtung all you London wankers:
Monstrous carbuncle at the Cutty Sark ship at Grenwich.
(, Fri 13 Jul 2012, 10:09, Reply)
So Telegraph readers dislike it.
What a surprise.
I think it's pretty magnificent; and if Telegraph readers disagree, that just makes me more confident of my judgement.
(UPDATE: Although, having just seen the original drawing, that would have been even better.)
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 13 Jul 2012, 10:27,
Reply)
Yeah, the concept pic look better (and nothing like the finished article)
But the end result doesn't look awful.
TaC
(
Fray Brentos *mega-belms*, Fri 13 Jul 2012, 10:33,
Reply)
Actually,
there's only a couple of buildings on the list (the Ibis hotel, and the Prince's Trust thing) that I don't like.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 13 Jul 2012, 10:38,
Reply)
For me the Arcelor Mittal Doctor Octopus thing should win this hands down.
I pass it quite often and it simply does not have a good angle.
(
thecrapgatsby isn't listening LALALALALALA, Fri 13 Jul 2012, 11:23,
Reply)
I'm going to reserve judgement on it.
It's certainly not Kapoor's finest hour, though.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 13 Jul 2012, 11:29,
Reply)
Torygraph comment
Can't some arsonist be paid to do a better job of burning this boat ? Most of the interesting parts of this clipper were burnt to a cinder in the original fire; the restoration was utterly pointless, as well as being hideous. Sell off any remaining genuine wood to a wood carver, and let them make scale models to sell to daft tourists for the next 500 years, in Greenwich or somewhere.
(
The Scrunt Wants a Dozen Pints, Fri 13 Jul 2012, 10:34,
Reply)
I like,
'It's 'right on' and and kow-towing to the corporate-left of the architectural establishment and its 'brutalist' and graceless modernist designs.'
I just thought it looked like a wave, personally. And offers better viewing/less arson accessibility.
I approve.
(, Fri 13 Jul 2012, 10:46, Reply)
I think it's a good concept that could have been executed much better
The fact that the window panels are so large makes it look like a B&Q greenhouse. I'd have liked to have seen it with much smaller glass panels - HIGH POLY NOT FOR A GAME
(
Michael Ellis contributes nothing, Fri 13 Jul 2012, 10:51,
Reply)
Urgh.
Was this what they were doing when they set fire to it? Perhaps it'd be better if they'd just left it to burn...
(
wheresthefish Partly filled with wrong, Fri 13 Jul 2012, 10:36,
Reply)
Andrew Gilligan
unfailingly voices opinions diametrically opposed to mine. It's actually quite useful if I'm not sure where I stand on a topic.
(
thecrapgatsby isn't listening LALALALALALA, Fri 13 Jul 2012, 11:03,
Reply)
I quite like it...
The only claim to fame of the Cutty Sark is that it survived the fate of most of its contemporaries. It isn't that old either being of Victorian origin (1869) and constructed of iron clad in timber (which is partly why it survived the fire).
You have to ask the question 'what for', when spending that much on a restoration. In this case the reason is tourism and education rather than the preservation of a national treasure. The nay-sayers have completely missed the point.
(
notoolsovernight you're all luvvly an' 'orrible, Fri 13 Jul 2012, 11:37,
Reply)
the interior looks quite interesting from the tiny picture I can find on their website
www.rmg.co.uk/upload/img_200/cutty-sark-underneath.jpg
But yeah, not sure what they were thinking with that superstructure. Maybe to hide the struts holding the ship up?
(, Fri 13 Jul 2012, 12:13, Reply)