Talk:Slough Bus Station - Revision history

Designing Buildings: Reverted edits by 82.70.93.182 (talk) to last revision by Designing Buildings

2018-05-14T20:34:57Z

Reverted edits by 82.70.93.182 (talk) to last revision by Designing Buildings

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:34, 14 May 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	'a ~~complex form can deliver~~ a ~~building~~ that is ~~highly functional~~ and ~~aesthetic pleasing~~.'	+	The article on Slough Bus Station ignores the reality of users' responses, which have been uniformly negative in terms of the functionality and user-friendliness of the environment that it provides. It is described as a bleak and inhospitable environment for passengers & bus drivers alike. Users describe it as not being weather proof and offering little sanctuary whilst waiting for buses<br />
		+	<br />
		+	The problem seems to be that it elevates visual design values over and above function. It offers a rhetorical design statement but little else. It is known locally - without affection - as the Slug.<br />
		+	<br />
		+	In all, it shows the danger of architecture that is led by talking the talk (aesthetics & theory) but that signally fails to walk the walk. Seen from a distance it is unobjectionable, but at close quarters and as a habitat it entirely lacks charm.

−	~~That building has minimal function~~, apart from being a disgusting eye sore. It barely shields passengers from the rain, which is gross stupidity considering we live in a rain drizzled country. Aesthetically, it looks like a motorcycle exhaust pipe. So well done, the person who designed Slough bus station ~~took up a university placement that would have been made better use of by somebody else. Wasted money. Wasted 'education'. Wasted life~~.	+	See Slough and South Bucks Observer, Wheelchair users still left with obstacle at £11m bus station. 20 Jan 2014

82.70.93.182 at 16:32, 14 May 2018

2018-05-14T16:32:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:32, 14 May 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~The article on Slough Bus Station ignores the reality of users~~' ~~responses, which have been uniformly negative in terms of the functionality and user-friendliness of the environment that it provides. It is described as~~ a ~~bleak and inhospitable environment for passengers & bus drivers alike. Users describe it as not being weather proof and offering little sanctuary whilst waiting for buses<br />~~	+	'a complex form can deliver a building that is highly functional and aesthetic pleasing.'
−	~~<br />~~	+
−	~~The problem seems to be that it elevates visual design values over and above function. It offers~~ a ~~rhetorical design statement but little else. It is known locally - without affection - as the Slug.<br />~~	+
−	~~<br />~~	+
−	~~In all, it shows the danger of architecture~~ that is ~~led by talking the talk (aesthetics & theory) but that signally fails to walk the walk. Seen from a distance it is unobjectionable, but at close quarters~~ and ~~as a habitat it entirely lacks charm~~.	+

−	~~See Slough and South Bucks Observer~~, ~~Wheelchair users still left with obstacle at £11m~~ bus station. ~~20 Jan 2014~~	+	That building has minimal function, apart from being a disgusting eye sore. It barely shields passengers from the rain, which is gross stupidity considering we live in a rain drizzled country. Aesthetically, it looks like a motorcycle exhaust pipe. So well done, the person who designed Slough bus station took up a university placement that would have been made better use of by somebody else. Wasted money. Wasted 'education'. Wasted life.

Designing Buildings at 16:09, 19 July 2016

2016-07-19T16:09:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:09, 19 July 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	The article on Slough Bus Station ignores the reality of users' responses, which have been uniformly negative in terms of the functionality and user-friendliness of the environment that it provides. It is described as a bleak and inhospitable environment for passengers & bus drivers alike. Users describe it as not being weather proof and offering little sanctuary whilst waiting for buses<br />
		+	<br />
		+	The problem seems to be that it elevates visual design values over and above function. It offers a rhetorical design statement but little else. It is known locally - without affection - as the Slug.<br />
		+	<br />
		+	In all, it shows the danger of architecture that is led by talking the talk (aesthetics & theory) but that signally fails to walk the walk. Seen from a distance it is unobjectionable, but at close quarters and as a habitat it entirely lacks charm.

−	The article on Slough Bus Station ignores the reality of users' responses, which have been uniformly negative in terms of the functionality and user-friendliness of the environment that it provides. It is described as a bleak and inhospitable environment for passengers & bus drivers alike. Users describe it as not being weather proof and offering little sanctuary whilst waiting for buses<br/><br/>The problem seems to be that it elevates visual design values over and above function. It offers a rhetorical design statement but little else. It is known locally - without affection - as the Slug.<br/><br/>In all, it shows the danger of architecture that is led by talking the talk (aesthetics & theory) but that signally fails to walk the walk. Seen from a distance it is unobjectionable, but at close quarters and as a habitat it entirely lacks charm.	+	See Slough and South Bucks Observer, Wheelchair users still left with obstacle at £11m bus station. 20 Jan 2014
−		+
−	See ~~[http://www.sloughobserver.co.uk/news/slough/articles/2014/01/20/96986-wheelc~~ Slough and South Bucks Observer, Wheelchair users still left with obstacle at £11m bus station]. 20 Jan 2014	+

86.146.90.167 at 13:46, 30 June 2014

2014-06-30T13:46:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:46, 30 June 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:

	The article on Slough Bus Station ignores the reality of users' responses, which have been uniformly negative in terms of the functionality and user-friendliness of the environment that it provides. It is described as a bleak and inhospitable environment for passengers & bus drivers alike. Users describe it as not being weather proof and offering little sanctuary whilst waiting for buses<br/><br/>The problem seems to be that it elevates visual design values over and above function. It offers a rhetorical design statement but little else. It is known locally - without affection - as the Slug.<br/><br/>In all, it shows the danger of architecture that is led by talking the talk (aesthetics & theory) but that signally fails to walk the walk. Seen from a distance it is unobjectionable, but at close quarters and as a habitat it entirely lacks charm.		The article on Slough Bus Station ignores the reality of users' responses, which have been uniformly negative in terms of the functionality and user-friendliness of the environment that it provides. It is described as a bleak and inhospitable environment for passengers & bus drivers alike. Users describe it as not being weather proof and offering little sanctuary whilst waiting for buses<br/><br/>The problem seems to be that it elevates visual design values over and above function. It offers a rhetorical design statement but little else. It is known locally - without affection - as the Slug.<br/><br/>In all, it shows the danger of architecture that is led by talking the talk (aesthetics & theory) but that signally fails to walk the walk. Seen from a distance it is unobjectionable, but at close quarters and as a habitat it entirely lacks charm.
		+
		+	See [http://www.sloughobserver.co.uk/news/slough/articles/2014/01/20/96986-wheelc Slough and South Bucks Observer, Wheelchair users still left with obstacle at £11m bus station]. 20 Jan 2014

86.143.158.170: Created page with " The article on Slough Bus Station ignores the reality of users' responses, which have been uniformly negative in terms of the functionality and user-friendliness of the environm..."

2014-06-28T16:39:59Z

Created page with " The article on Slough Bus Station ignores the reality of users' responses, which have been uniformly negative in terms of the functionality and user-friendliness of the environm..."

New page

The article on Slough Bus Station ignores the reality of users' responses, which have been uniformly negative in terms of the functionality and user-friendliness of the environment that it provides. It is described as a bleak and inhospitable environment for passengers & bus drivers alike. Users describe it as not being weather proof and offering little sanctuary whilst waiting for buses<br/><br/>The problem seems to be that it elevates visual design values over and above function. It offers a rhetorical design statement but little else. It is known locally - without affection - as the Slug.<br/><br/>In all, it shows the danger of architecture that is led by talking the talk (aesthetics & theory) but that signally fails to walk the walk. Seen from a distance it is unobjectionable, but at close quarters and as a habitat it entirely lacks charm.