I (fairly) recently commented on an article that had originally appeared in the Architecture Scotland magazine, 'Prospect'; here is the comment:
"The reference to communities does not seem to give a balanced view of how the proposals arose and the significant opposition to and concerns voiced by the public and communities regarding these proposals for this large scale development currently contrary to the existing adopted Inverness Local Plan."
and the author's reply:
"Thanks Cathy - I think there is certainly an issue about how and why Tornagrain was selected and I agree that this article doesn’t go there and instead deals with the detail of the proposal. There is a wider discussion about reinforcing existing towns and cities rather than building new settlements and this is particularly apposite in the case of Inverness."
To read the article click here
The author's reply amounts to an admission that he failed to grasp the main issue.
ReplyDeleteToo often architects - and planners - are seduced by the detail of trendy concepts and distracted by pretty pictures of buildings, and then fail to look carefully at the context, location and function of the proposed development.
The problem with Tornagrain is that it is (possibly) a good architectural idea, probably not justified or required, and definitely in the wrong place.
APTCynic views the architecture as a way of justifying that a significant proportion of the properties will be close together with very little space interior and exterior space. APTSec will post on this soon.
ReplyDelete