Question for the Scots

[Phil]

I have not heard Prince Charles' opinions of this building (I am SURE he has some!) but I'd not be surprised if he thought of it as a carbunkle on the face of Edinburgh!

My own opinion, and I have seen it's exterior several times and the interior once, is that it is an utter disgrace and an affront to the purpose for which it was built. The exterior, to my eye, resembles an unfinished building site (maybe it IS unfinished for all we know!), whilst the interior is like that of a modern secondary school - the debating chamber itself is a cross between a school gymnasium with desks set out for an examination, and a TV studio! The overhead lighting would be a credit to a TV studio or theatre, and the evidence of so many TV cameras does not help to dispel this opinion.

Here I am in the Chamber, in September 2004:



As for the location of this place, I just cannot imagine what the planners were thinking when they allowed 'it' to be constructed immediately across the road from the historic, stately and Oh so beautiful Palace of Holyroodhouse.

Prince Charles had some pretty negative opinions about the National Museum extension too but he changed his mind when he saw it finished. I agree with you though that it looks like a school gymnasium and I can't get over the the banister rails set at strange angles. There are a lot of beautiful buildings in Edinburgh but if anyone tried to reproduce them nowadays they would cost an awful lot more than this Parliament. At least it is controversial unlike the St. James Centre or that carbuncle being demolished on George IV bridge. It will be interesting to see what they are replaced with. Don't talk about planners by the way. If you knowThe Barnton Hotel as you come in from the Forth bridge, the developers actually stated that they had been encouraged by the Planning Department to design a cutting edge modern building to replace the Victorian landmark - oh and they could cram in more expensive flats as a result.

[furrycelt]

Here's how I see it: it may be controversial and ultra-hipster-modern now but I predict that it will become outdated and tacky very soon. That's why I personally prefer classic styles (especailly for government buildings). Walking around DC, the government buildings are beautiful and inspiring, whereas this building may be new and exciting, but for how long?

i agree. there is something to be said for "timeless" designs for things that are intended to live over the span of several generations or longer.

and like others have said, i do think it is a frightfully ugly building.

i live in my state's capital (Raleigh, NC). the original capitol building is fine looking, but our government out grew it. there are a variety of buildings now that handle government affairs, most are good to ok looking. but the new legislative building is just awful inside and out. it too has a very dated style. its like Buck Rogers meets Ancient Egypt.

let me dig up a pic or two of it: