Why, why do we have to put up with second best?

I know we live in the provinces, I know we have more restricted budgets and I know our aspirations are different from other areas, but why do we have to accept such poor quality design? Particularly when it comes to public buildings paid for with public money. The proposed festival hall (Destination Maryport), as reported in The Times and Star (8 September 2006), is to put it very bluntly a pile of sh*te. I apologise for such language but how else can you describe what is presented as a ‘futuristic festival hall’. It is nothing more than a B&Q shed with a curvy bit added as a pitiful token gesture toward design. This is not architecture, it is certainly not worthy of any label associated with design and what is more important – it is not a fitting or worthy proposal for Maryport. We can do better, much better, so why settle for second best all the time…
The image above is taken from The Times and Star (8 September 2006).

Prompted by a colleague who suggested I should give a more intellectual critique of the proposal, I have added this second part to the post.

Part 2
Architecture can be broken down broadly into 2 parts. The first is context. A building must respond to its location. In its most basic application, a building must be designed to sit on a specific site - for example, a building designed for a flat field cannot easily sit on a sloped site. In the case of the proposal, the context is very dramatic and clear – it being a) on the coast, and b) at the foot of an escarpment (the ancient coastline). These are the basic physical elements of context, but within the design, the intellectual aspects of the site and the area should also be included - referencing back to the archaeological remnants of the past, possibly even the none factual, but none the less important and influential, folk lore that may prevail. Again in this situation we have 2 strong historical references which can be made – fishing and the Romans, but does ‘Destination Maryport’ do that? No. It could be a building sited just as easily in the south of England and not even on the coast. You must not mistake this criticism as a desire to see a mock Roman amphitheatre or a beached ship, as this would be crass and be met with similar disdain as the current incumbent but there should be an intellectual interpretation of the site.

The second element which needs to be applied in the quest for worthy architecture is an economic and clever use of space. That is, the building should be laid out in such a way that it not only allows for its best use but engages the user’s emotions. In this case, the locality should be appreciated by celebrating the views or concentrating the eye on a particular object or message. Nowhere does this proposal do that. It may well be an economical use of space but only in the same way as a B&Q shed.

Lastly, and of fundamental importance, is the drawing together of the two previous parts to produce an architecture that speaks of the locality and expresses its purpose. A contemporary example of this is the original proposal for the Freedom Tower by Daniel Libeskind with its off center spire reaching a symbolic 1,776 feet high which makes an optimistic and defiant gesture with its contextual reference to the Statue of Liberty, as well as being practical by being a communication mast. I hope that helps in way of explanation of my distaste and disappointment for what undoubtedly will be built. However, I will continue to battle in the hope that those in the positions of power (bureaucratic, economic and political) will come round to appreciate the fundamental importance of quality architecture and its positive benefits to all.