Beauty in the eye of the beholder

The spiky roof at the school looks more ornament than useful - it is not shielding the children from the sun in the picture and, as others have said, will hardly be a shelter from rain, or chill winds. What a waste of money when a more practical architectural design for the school would probably have cost far less and left more money in the budget to be spent on other schools or equipment.

Why do so many modern buildings try to resemble factories, aircraft hangars etc?
Have we seen some of these monstrosities on Grand Designs? I see no beauty in most of them.

The tea rooms looks rather pleasant.

Very useful historical background Varian. The way buildings are used nowadays are quite different from hundreds of years ago, and notions of beauty do change over the years. How sustainable and Eco the building is, should be of particular importance these days. I wonder what Leonardo would be designing if he practiced now? Not the buildings of the past I guess. I am disappointed that the housing estates mushrooming around so many towns display no originality but continue to be cheap replicas of past eras.

Increase
In the past
‘Ten...best towns’

Sorry!

I cannot stand modernism and brutalism in architecture and am sure the inappropriateness of these horrible eyesores and their imposition on the natural and built environment increases feelings of oppressiveness and alienation in individuals. Architects today are responsible for ruining our irreplaceable and beautiful environment just as, in contrast, architects sin the past added to the natural beauties.

Look at any list of ‘ten/twenty/a hundred best towns and they are always market towns or small cities full of listed and lovely old buildings. Well off and successful people flock to them, buy the houses and move mountains to preserve the beauty whilst modern architects give themselves prizes for destroying the public spaces and buildings which are not so happily protected.

I wager that the ten Scottish prize winners will also be winning prizes in the ‘ten worst eyesores’ or the ‘crap towns’ categories when voted for by the public on whom they have been inflicted.

Architects are a strange breed

Even today architectural students study the work of Vitruvius, who was a Roman author, architect, civil engineer and military engineer during the 1st century BC, and is known for his multi-volume work entitled De architectura. His discussion of perfect proportion in architecture and the human body led to the famous Renaissance drawing by Leonardo da Vinci of Vitruvian Man.

Vitruvius is famous for asserting that a structure must exhibit the three qualities of "firmitatis, utilitatis, venustatis" – that is, stability, commodity, beauty. These are sometimes termed the Vitruvian virtues or the Vitruvian Triad. No building should be judged on the basis of just one of these qualities.

Nowadays "firmitatis" or structural stability, is left more to the work of structural engineers who architects rely on to ensure that a building can be safely constructed and will not fall down.

To many practicing architects "utilitatis" , sometimes, translated as "commodity", is the starting point for design. The architect is presented with a site and a brief, with the brief describing how the building is to be used and how it may have to adapt to future uses. We also need to design buildings that are truly sustainable and add, not detract from our environment. Quite a number of eye-catching prize-winning buildings by famous architects have later been criticised because they did not function as well as they should.

The final quality "venustatis" or "beauty, is the most difficult to assess, as it is to some extent, as the OP says, in the eye of the beholder. A building may be judged in relation to its context - geographical, cultural, historical. There are some aesthetic guidelines for design, but the definition of beauty can never be exact. A truly beautiful building will also be structurally sound and appropriate for its use. Visual appearance, both interior and exterior, may be delightful, but building cannot be truly beautiful unless all three qualities - of firmitatis, utilitatis, venustatis, are integrated in total harmony.

The RIAS is, I think looking for the most beautiful building in its entirety, not just for the one with the most aesthetic appeal.

Love the Willow tea rooms but, the others, to my eye, are either ugly or boring.

I like to see different periods of architecture. I live in a very modern apartment, one daughter in a 1930s house, my London daughter in a Georgian terrace, my son in a Modernist apartment, and my youngest daughter in an Edwardian villa, all very different, but all with their own charm. I’m a member of the 20th Century society, but also appreciate Nash, Wren and other old masters.

I’m with Blinko on this. Would have liked to see more photos of each though.

They're not traditional but they are striking! I like the school and the V&A Dundee

Yes the Willow Tea Rooms aren't exactly cutting edge as they were when first designed a century ago!

Love McIntosh's Willow tea rooms. Now looks much the same as it did in 1965, when DH and I got engaged there - to much cheering from the staff and customers.

I find most of the hideous too, but at least they are different!

I agree with Dora I love them. I love the school and the museum especially.
I also love the Shard and Gherkin and other London buildings as they add character to the skyline.

Really, really like th e Black House, distillery, V&S and the Willow Tea Rooms.

The rest a 're either indifferent or truly awful and trying to be zeitgeist and failing.

I'm intrigued by all of them and would certainly look into them more.

The McIntosh tearooms are beautiful and instantly recognisable.

The Blood transfusion service must have a lovely environment to work in, surely.

I will definitely have a look further at these buildings when I have time.

I do like Mackintosh at the Willow

Thank goodness I live on London and for a bus ride can see ‘real’ architecture. Thank you Christopher Wren...you are sorely missed.

I think you are being half unreasonable as there are some striking bits of domestic modern architecture there and the Mackintosh tea room looks amazing. But the Edinburgh blood transfusion centre? The architect must have had to schmooze a lot of the right people to get that into the list!

Oh dear indeed. I'm not impressed at all. So much style over substance.
I've been to the V&A in Dundee. It's a huge building with such large overhangs and angles that the actual space inside is much smaller than you'd expect. The point of a museum is the exhibits I'd have thought rather than the grossly expensive building.

I thought all but four of them were boring, but you can’t judge something boring by looking at the outside alone. And are the spaces practical? I do think architects struggle to make an impact sometimes.

I like them all , and love some of them , agree about the shelter from the spiky roof but love the look

Actually I like them all with the V&A Dundee being my favourite. Brave and Modern. Innovative and exciting. whats not to like?

I love modern architecture - not wild about some of these, though the Mackintosh restoration is so very beautiful.
My worry about modern architecture is that some architects are more keen on trying to win awards, than on the practicalities for those who must live/work there. (Speaking from experience - new school, lovely outside, nightmare to work in, some classrooms with no outside windows!)

I like most of them- especially the McIntosh window.
I remember about 20 years ago a building in Dorking won an award - I think it was the council offices or something. It was a total eyesore. It used to annoy me every morning on the way into work.
I guess it is just a personal thing.