Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\05\02 22:59, wrote:

Phew , I half expected to open that and find that it had been
demolished by an errant road sweeper or worse been uprooted and swiped
for some town or city's twee improved pedestrian area with newly laid
cobbles and reproduction Edwardian lampposts till I noticed the 2014
date.

Either a thing looks nice or it doesn't. Why was it okay for Edwardians
to make things that looked nice but it's not okay for us? The people who
make beauty in the age of ugliness deserve praise, not criticism.

They do, but producing pastiche Edwardian stuff is worthy of much less
praise than producing good original designs. Modern stuff often is, but
need not be, ugly.

On Tue, 2 May 2017 23:48:20 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\05\02 22:59, wrote:

Phew , I half expected to open that and find that it had been
demolished by an errant road sweeper or worse been uprooted and swiped
for some town or city's twee improved pedestrian area with newly laid
cobbles and reproduction Edwardian lampposts till I noticed the 2014
date.

Either a thing looks nice or it doesn't. Why was it okay for Edwardians
to make things that looked nice but it's not okay for us? The people who
make beauty in the age of ugliness deserve praise, not criticism.

They do, but producing pastiche Edwardian stuff is worthy of much less
praise than producing good original designs. Modern stuff often is, but
need not be, ugly.

Depends. Modern buildings are IMO range from the uninspired to the pig ugly.
Even the shard doesn't really do it for me - a 3 year old can draw a giant
glass pyramid, where is the inspiration and fine detail? And as for the
identikit office blocks, rabbit hutch houses and industrial estates the less
said the better. OTOH cars are looking pretty good these days, its hard to find
a really ugly one anymore, and tech stuff also looks pretty smart to me.

--
Spud

In message , at 08:27:15 on Wed, 3 May
2017, d remarked:

OTOH cars are looking pretty good these days, its hard to find
a really ugly one anymore

Plenty of them are really ugly. The Nissan Joke, for example.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 3 May 2017 10:13:06 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:27:15 on Wed, 3 May
2017, d remarked:

OTOH cars are looking pretty good these days, its hard to find
a really ugly one anymore

Plenty of them are really ugly. The Nissan Joke, for example.

Well alright, I didn't say there weren't any. But everyday car design (obviously
not ferraris etc) went down the toilet from the mid 70s to about the late 90s
but in the last 15 or so years its improved immensely IMO.

--
Spud

On Wed, 03 May 2017 10:04:38 +0100, wrote:

On Wed, 3 May 2017 00:25:14 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2017\05\02 22:59, wrote:

Phew , I half expected to open that and find that it had been
demolished by an errant road sweeper or worse been uprooted and swiped
for some town or city's twee improved pedestrian area with newly laid
cobbles and reproduction Edwardian lampposts till I noticed the 2014
date.

Either a thing looks nice or it doesn't. Why was it okay for Edwardians
to make things that looked nice but it's not okay for us? The people who
make beauty in the age of ugliness deserve praise, not criticism.

Was there an age of beauty? Every era has a proportion of both
pleasant and nasty ambiences.
We often forget the latter, Terminal stations were fairly unpleasant
places with the fug of numerous steam and later diesel locos exhaust
filling the air but a single celebrity steamer into such a station now
brings out nostalgia most of which is now inherited memories rather
than first hand experience.
Agree things should look nice but just loosely copying Edwardian
street furniture sometimes looks a bit contrived, it needs the area
covered in Horse muck to be realistic.
There is plenty of good modern design around.

Anyway the Gist of my post was that something genuine and still in its
original location may have been swiped for use elsewhere to add
something authentic amongst all the replicas.

G.Harman

You might enjoy this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtTaAZMgDPI

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

On Wed, 3 May 2017 00:25:14 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2017\05\02 22:59, wrote:

Phew , I half expected to open that and find that it had been
demolished by an errant road sweeper or worse been uprooted and swiped
for some town or city's twee improved pedestrian area with newly laid
cobbles and reproduction Edwardian lampposts till I noticed the 2014
date.

Either a thing looks nice or it doesn't. Why was it okay for Edwardians
to make things that looked nice but it's not okay for us? The people who
make beauty in the age of ugliness deserve praise, not criticism.

We agree on this. Not everything the Edwardians built was beautiful.
Not everything thing built since the 1960s is ugly. But, the balance
is sure in favor of the Edwardians.

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\05\02 22:59, wrote:

Phew , I half expected to open that and find that it had been
demolished by an errant road sweeper or worse been uprooted and swiped
for some town or city's twee improved pedestrian area with newly laid
cobbles and reproduction Edwardian lampposts till I noticed the 2014
date.

Either a thing looks nice or it doesn't. Why was it okay for Edwardians
to make things that looked nice but it's not okay for us? The people who
make beauty in the age of ugliness deserve praise, not criticism.

Fashions change, of course. For example, the late Victorian Tower Bridge is
now highly regarded as one of London's icons, but was much criticised when
built. Less well known is that the key engineer who worked on it was
Brunel. No, not I K Brunel, but his son, Henry Marc Brunel.

On Sat, 6 May 2017 23:20:35 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\05\02 22:59, wrote:

Phew , I half expected to open that and find that it had been
demolished by an errant road sweeper or worse been uprooted and swiped
for some town or city's twee improved pedestrian area with newly laid
cobbles and reproduction Edwardian lampposts till I noticed the 2014
date.

Either a thing looks nice or it doesn't. Why was it okay for Edwardians
to make things that looked nice but it's not okay for us? The people who
make beauty in the age of ugliness deserve praise, not criticism.

Fashions change, of course. For example, the late Victorian Tower Bridge is
now highly regarded as one of London's icons, but was much criticised when
built. Less well known is that the key engineer who worked on it was
Brunel. No, not I K Brunel, but his son, Henry Marc Brunel.

The Eiffel Tower was widely seen as hideous when it was built but now its
the de facto symbol of France. However I'm probably in the tiny minority who
think its detractors were right - it is butt ugly and looks like an
electricity pylon on steroids IMO.

--
Spud

On Mon, 08 May 2017 00:33:07 +0100
wrote:
On Sun, 7 May 2017 16:44:31 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:


Fashions change, of course. For example, the late Victorian Tower Bridge is
now highly regarded as one of London's icons, but was much criticised when
built.
The Eiffel Tower was widely seen as hideous when it was built but now its
the de facto symbol of France. However I'm probably in the tiny minority who
think its detractors were right - it is butt ugly and looks like an
electricity pylon on steroids IMO.

You'll be glad the English one was stillborn then.
http://spiritofmirko.com/wp-content/...tower_1900.jpg

I presume there would have been more to it than that? Unless thats all they
could afford!

--
Spud

wrote:
On Mon, 08 May 2017 00:33:07 +0100
wrote:
On Sun, 7 May 2017 16:44:31 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:


Fashions change, of course. For example, the late Victorian Tower Bridge is
now highly regarded as one of London's icons, but was much criticised when
built.
The Eiffel Tower was widely seen as hideous when it was built but now its
the de facto symbol of France. However I'm probably in the tiny minority who
think its detractors were right - it is butt ugly and looks like an
electricity pylon on steroids IMO.

You'll be glad the English one was stillborn then.
http://spiritofmirko.com/wp-content/...tower_1900.jpg

I presume there would have been more to it than that? Unless thats all they
could afford!

That's when the money ran out. It had been intended to be 150' taller than
the French original. All part of Watkin's Metroland vision. Wembley
Stadium's Twin Towers were later built on top of the old tower's
foundations.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watkin%27s_Tower