Landmarks

There is a world of difference between progress from living in mud huts to brick buildings and progress by dumping a useless great artifact that serves no purpose in an area of natural beauty.
 
One of my objections to summat else up t'coppie is illustrated perfectly by those two photographs of vandalism.

If the shelter and so called monument are in such a state (which they were not when I was younger) wouldn't putting a panopticon up there only give the vandals something else to wreck?

As for Peter Beard, I remember looking at some other things he'd designed and being totally unimpressed.

Why an architect? Why not an artist? a sculptor?
 
Guinness said:
There is a world of difference between progress from living in mud huts to brick buildings and progress by dumping a useless great artifact that serves no purpose in an area of natural beauty.
Click to expand...
to add to the two useless great artifacts that are already there you mean? and with those on it, vandalised like that I'd hardly class it as natural beauty.
or do a vandalised bus shelter and a broken monument make it that natural beaty spot in your eyes?
 
Madhatter said:
to add to the two useless great artifacts that are already there you mean? and with those on it, vandalised like that I'd hardly class it as natural beauty.
or do a vandalised bus shelter and a broken monument make it that natural beaty spot in your eyes?
Click to expand...

Firstly if you're waiting for a bus up there you'll be waiting a long time.:p

Secondly the shelter may be vandalised, but unless you are up there it isn't a visible blot on the natural beauty of the Coppice, which some of the designs would have been, particularly the Accrington/Hollywood monstrosity.
 
I didn't actually see that one but that space ship one that rawtenstall got is ok, can't you put a matching pink one on the coppice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top