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 Despite this, I hope that it does survive, as an historical reference to the fashion of the age and so that no more hardcore, plastic reinforced concrete and fibreglass is dug into land-fills and left to contaminate the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.
But (and at the risk of retreading the discussion about value in music) why should such a building have any purpose for its appearance other than to attract customers? And if an architect sits down and asks himself, "How can I make this building attract customers?" then why is that any less of an intellectual challenge than any other building purpose? Similarly, in what sense does it look "shallow"? I'd have thought that if it makes sense to talk about shallowness in building design, you'd apply it to buildings that are unoriginal or that look like everything else. I'd say that this building had an original and unusual appearance. Whether it is an attractive appearance or not, or one that is compatible with the good functioning of what goes on inside, is another matter, but I don't really see what "shallowness" or "integrity" or "bimboness" have to do with it.
[Bm] Well, I don't think Btd is saying a building should have a better reason for its appearance, simply that if it doesn't, he doesn't think much of it. The intelligence of architecture, I would imagine, is in the way it interacts with the intelligence of the people that use it (rather than just whether it's a brain workout for the architect, otherwise a Temple Grandin abbatoir would be great architecture). Thus if all the Selfridge's building does is to drag you in and make you spend some money, then that's not a very intelligent way to be treated. If, on the other hand, it inspires you with thoughts biology or maths, that's rather more intelligent. If it manages to combine intellectual stimulation and its function, and make those two things interrelate, then I guess it's very clever indeed.
[Btd] All seems fair enough, although I must say, I've never worn high heels simply in order to comply with convention.
Projoy] Nearly there. I agree whole heartedly with your phrase "If it manages to combine intellectual stimulation and its function, and make those two things interrelate, then I guess it's very clever indeed." Bread] I agree that an architect may if s/he wishes choose to design a building with the sole purpose of attracting customers. In this case they have and I am led to believe that they glory in that. My issue is that I (personally) find that approach unethical. Regarding shallowness - I did not say that it looked shallow. It doesn't, it looks interesting. The concept is shallow - one dimensional. If Joseph Beuys had piled lard on a chair to sell lard, it may have succeeded for a while but it would have been quickly forgotten. For me, the Selfridges building is just that, only more blingy. And with consumer culture responsible for so many of the environmental and social ills of our time, disposable 'environments' are a trend I would not wish to support.
[Chalky] Don't take me too seriously, my comment was made from that one image. I'm quite sure that if I happened to be in the area I'd duck in and have a look at the interior. Still looks like a beached whale though. :-)