[Chalky] But OTOH, I like it just on its own. [Btd] I can't resist asking (in the typical debate-starting manner) why this bit of architecture is less intelligent than, say, St Paul's Cathedral. The best reason I can think of is that while this building looks like a jokily scaled-up sequinned amoeba, St Paul's Cathedral looks like, well, a cathedral - which depending on your POV suggests that Christopher Wren was less decadent than Future Systems. Also, some architecture critics have pointed out that Selfridge's is basically a shell-concept, with little of architectural interest inside it, so not a coherent bit of architecture? Are these your reasons for disliking it?
What does Maxwell Hutchinson mean by "architectural integrity"? To me, that would mean "it satisfies the purpose it was built for, keeps out the rain, and doesn't fall down", but he appears to have some moral concept in mind. Googling for some reviews of the place, I didn't see much mention of whether it works in that sense. I did see a lot of photography that one might accuse of lacking in architectural integrity, i.e. shots taken from unusual angles that give no idea of what the thing actually looks like.
[Projoy] Ever seen St Paul's from above? The facade is not part of the structure, so it's a shell just like Selfridges. It gives a nice impression from the street, but it's not what it appears to be.
Projoy and debate] I'm not that good at debating well because I feel very strongly about some issues and have a tendency to be both self-righteous and politically correct. However, I will present my own reasons for disliking the Selfridges building and why I think that Maxwell Hutchinson quote on Bimbo Architecture is a spot on reference to it. I would not like to think that I have offended anyone (as I have done when I fail to understand why people should play golf, wash their car on a Sunday, get married, get pierced, get tattoos, wear high heels or do any of the other multitude of bizarre things people do unquestioningly in order to comply with a convention.
I have no idea whether St Paul’s is good Architecture. It has stood the test of time in terms of its foundations and stability, it is a huge and well laid out edifice with some stunning work by a range of crafts people, it has a fascinating and well documented history.
My first reaction to the Selfridges building was ‘wow!’ It really is impressive. It is not out of place and it fits the nature of what it contains. My issues are more to do with the nature of consumption to which it is a cathedral. In one respect, I can see that there is some validity in the design. The shallowness of the outside is perfectly complimented by what it contains.
There is no reason for its appearance other than to attract consumers. It is simply a fashion statement. I have no idea how long it will last, but if its predecessor (which was greeted with similar acclaim when it was built) is any reference, it will be pulled down in 2030 amid claims that it is an eyesore. The building materials may be novel, but are not sustainable or easily repaired or updated. There are already worn and grubby areas. Despite this, I hope that it does survive, as an historical reference to the fashion of the age and so that no more hardcore, plastic reinforced concrete and fibreglass is dug into land-fills and left to contaminate the countryside.
I have no issue at all with the look of the building (apart from the fact it will get very mucky very quickly) and I would have welcomed a far more radical design (something by Anish Kapoor would have been perfect) had there been any thought to social and environmental sustainability when it was built.