RAF Museum Unveils the Battle of Britain Beacon
 

Very cool.

Looking at that makes me think just of the BoB :rolleyes: seriously, I said this when I first saw the plans and I still stand by and say that it looks like a crock of shit. They could have designed something that at least made you think of the 1940's, I don't know, a design that looked like a comm's tower or something. Inside it doesn't look too bad, but I really detest this design.

1st: I kinda like it and I guess they need more exhibition space too.

2nd: They are nuts!
I've been there, and this really is not the neighborhood for such a huge(tall) building. It just wont fit.


I just realised: Isn't that the place where they have the wright factory right now?

As an urban planner I'm stunned how invasive this design is and as posters already said: It's a very modern design that does not fit the interior utilization nor the intended exterior representation. The view from the motorway makes it look like a new nuclear power-plant being constructed there, not like it had anything to do with aviation or the Battle of Britain.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/...70_468x599.jpg


These monuments are much more appealing and iconic, IMHO:
http://marsartifacts.tripod.com/batt...n_memorial.jpg

http://www.jasonineurope.com/images/...0-%20Small.jpg

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/resources.../?type=display

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/14/19...75359b0f1d.jpg


On a personal note: What message do they want to send, creating yet another memorial for a battle that happened 60 years ago?

What, the BoB was in 1950? :grin: :oops: :lol:

matters, lots...

So, you agree with me, I guess. ;)

BoB Beacon
 

Looking at it, I'm reminded of a propeller. Has anyone heard what it is supposed to look like, or represent?

binky9

Sorry, Brits, that's just hideous. A memorial, yes. That monstrosity, no way. Much too modern and has no symbolism.

Splitter

Probably a prop or wing(root). But a bit to abstract, IMHO.

I don't think its appearance is supposed to represent anything about the battle, but is rather to catch your eye and make you think 'what the hell is that?' Then you would walk in and think 'oh, how silly of me, its obviously a Battle of Britain memorial...'

:grin: Made me smile ;) I was really bitter to see this. I mean, I know we have a ferris wheel and a gerkhin in London, but at least they have some comedy value and are easily recognizeable (and quite quirky) but this is an embarassment to the RAF museum.

I wish you hadn't mentioned the gherkin. I had to look it up. What are you all doing to that old city?!

Splitter

Let's focus on the good.... :cool:

A large elliptical wing shape, standing vertically with prominent roundel would have been more appropriate.

Looks good to me:grin:

I would guess a beacon of hope.

London is coming on by leaps and bounds. The great bits are still great. But many of the dowdy old relics have given way to some really remarkable stuff. A trip along the river now is to see a city that no longer tuns its back on the Thames. It's becoming a more integrated city. Look out for 2012, too. Oh, and I don't live there and have never been a fan of the place.

Not convinced on the exterior design at all. Was it conjured up by the same people who designed the ludicrous London 2012 Olympics logo?

However, the interior design looks spot on. A superb touch to make it look as if the aircraft at the top are frozen in the sky, locked in a perpertual dogfight.

PPanPan

I actually quite like the building... Sorry all.

As to what it's supposed to be.. It's a beacon.

The British have a long history of lighting beacons to warn of imminent invasion so it's actually quite apt.

Monumental and awesome design! Love it.

Will definitely pay a visit.

No need to say sorry for your opinion.

It's interesting to see the different historic and cultural context.
Art (and architecture) is always open for discussion IMHO.


I'd at least open the structure, place a vertical band of glass in the broader sides. It would still resemble the beacon, maybe even improve the impression, especially for the nightly impression, with the vertical beam of light lighting the sky, but originating from the British soil.
In daylight it would definitely increase the impression of the then visible aircraft inside at different "altitudes".

More glass would improve it for sure. I think it's a little bit too silver.
But a beacon is supposed to be seen from far away.. and this will definately be seen from a very long way away on a sunny day!

It'll be interesting to see what it eventually ends up looking like.

it can be a pair of giant breasts,as long as future generations have something to remind them of the b.o.b,i think it is great,hopefully it will make youngsters pick up a book and learn about it

I do agree though; I love London, and although some of it's buildings may be quirky, it has huge charm :D

+1
Agreed, even if I'm a Brit.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1283321387

I think Clive James described it as being a 'typewriter full of oyster shells' ...or something similar.
He's right in his description...but it's supremely beautiful anyway, and a tribute to Danish design.
What a great monument.

Here is the great Clive James takes on Sydney; from his masterpiece 'Flying Visits' ...his series of postcard-type reviews of visits to prominent cities:

http://www.clivejames.com/flying-visits/sydney/1

http://www.clivejames.com/flying-visits/sydney/2



Ooooh! What a book!...how I loved to read his encounters of visits to foreign lands...it was just like being there myself.

I guess next you Europeans will want to put some sort of modern sculpture in front of the Louvre....oh wait....:)

Yeah, I don't like that one either.

You all have REAL history. Here in the US, we go back maybe 300 years. You all have thousands of years of history and should be preserving the character of some of the oldest places. Save the more modern designs for places without so much history.

The truth is, I have never had the opportunity to actually visit a lot of the European cities I would like to. I usually just get stuck in airports or nearby hotels for meetings and then a quick flight back. I don't want it all to be altered before I get the chance to take in the history at my leisure :).

Splitter

Well, the neighborhood where they want to build it is actually a shithole (cheap houses, lots of immigrants), from this point of view there's not much to destroy.

But:

The largest building around I saw was a Metro Police training facility, about 5 stories high.
And the beacon is supposed to be ~120m...

has no symbolism

Lol sorry but had to laugh at that comment (the clue is in the name). I see winny put you right on that score Splitter, beacons were used extensively when under threat of invasion, and so do resonate within the British psyche.

Beacon Pyres have been employed throughout our history and were used extensively on elevated land to warn of the presence of enemy and to coordinate defences, case in point is the Spanish Armada invasion attempt, but also used in our feuds with each other. I think with the lighting it may even have a kind of searchlight effect which would be apt too given the location.

Lukewarm about the design, but hardly an abomination. Maybe I'm over imaginative but I immediately thought of the 'prop' thing too. The interior looks like an excellent concept, I like it.....but agree with Feurfalke that it would benefit from some transparency. That way, along with the lighting there could be a kind of silhouette effect showing the aircraft at altitude, which could be quite impressive from distance.

Though I'm not a big fan of so called "modern art" (give me the Rembrandts, Monet's and Michaelangelo's any day) I actually don't think this is too bad. I like Picasso and Dali, and they could hardly be described as conservative and restrained. :)

If this offends your strait laced sensibilities then you'd probably have a heart attack in Madrid. :grin:

What message do they want to send, creating yet another memorial for a battle that happened 60 years ago?

Oh, I don't know Feurfalke. Maybe the message is that we are quite proud of the part we played in ridding the world of a despotic, totalitarian regime and a genocidal maniac who would have murdered anyone in Britain who did not fit their "Master Race" (LMAO) Ideal. Just a theory, but don't worry about it too much mate. We don't really require your approval anyway. :grin:

Well, the neighborhood where they want to build it is actually a shithole (cheap houses, lots of immigrants), from this point of view there's not much to destroy.

Wow. So all future developments should be in well to do bourgeois areas? Forget about the 'peasants' they do not have the intelligence to appreciate art anyway, out of sight....out of mind eh? Not everyone is lucky (?) enough to be born a spoilt b*stard with a silver spoon in their mouth.

Incidentally, I grew up in one of the "sh*tholes" you mention (a council estate in Newcastles West End) and social deprivation can hardly be blamed on the inhabitants. Why do you think immigrants are sent there? To keep them out of 'Daily Mail land' of course. Was lucky enough to get to University and do something with my life (thanks in no small part to the "Horrors of Socialism" Splitter, otherwise my life would be very different :)) but not everyone can.

Maybe they are more deserving of some nice things than others, having been perpetually f*cked over, exploited by industry and ignored by successive governments....though art would be very low on my personal list.

So, you approve of deprived areas staying just the way they are.....as long as they are not near you? Investment in deprived areas is a bad thing? Christ. :rolleyes:

Or maybe I've been too hasty and you are from there, and venting at the injustice. If so I take it all back. :D

Try to read.
The post was related to splinters "country with real history and cultural valuable" buildings. There aren't any there.
Now you might want to read my post again.
What I said was: From this point of view you CAN build it there.
>No interference with historical buildings.

Doesn't change the fact it's butt ugly, way too high, and does not integrate in the neighborhood where it is planned.

I wouldn't mind if they put it next to the cucumber.
At least the two ugliest buildings of Britain would be next to each other - that site could even be in competition with the London Dungeon - lol.

Well, I tried to "read it again" and strangely, what I read was this.

Well, the neighborhood where they want to build it is actually a shithole (cheap houses, lots of immigrants), from this point of view there's not much to destroy.

But:

The largest building around I saw was a Metro Police training facility, about 5 stories high.
And the beacon is supposed to be ~120m...

If you could point out the bit where "What I said was: From this point of view you CAN build it there." I'd be most obliged. Oh wait, you didn't. :grin:

All you had to say was that's what you meant instead of trying to be funny, understood. Its most definitely not what you wrote. Maybe "try to read" it again yourself, mate, lol. :grin:

Cheers. :grin:

Agree, there is no link.

It is history, not modern art.

The link is the beacon.. I'm British and I made the link within 10 seconds of seeing the building. I'm no Architect but I know what I like and I like it.

And whoever said:

What message do they want to send, creating yet another memorial for a battle that happened 60 years ago?

Seriously..?

The message is never forget the young men who made it possible for you to dislike stuff without it getting you killed. Currently in the UK the only static
BoB memorial is a little statue of a pilot which is a litttle understated to say the least. If you happen to like it or not is besides the point, it's what it represents that's the important bit. But the way this forum is going at the moment means it was only a matter of time before it started getting all high brow and spikey.

The thing with eurpoean history is, we've got loads of it, all over the show. So by building something modern we're just adding to it not detracting from it.

I love the way people get so offended by modern buildings, it must really hurt their eyes or something when they see UGLY because they really don't like it.

It's like 'when nerds attack' in here sometimes

Don't think anyone should get worried about this. Under the current government, prop: D. Cameron, (who somehow thinks the Americans stood shoulder to shoulder with Britian during BOB!), we have a regime who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Aside from that nothing is more depressing than looking at aircraft dangling on wires like the bedroom of a nine year old boy in the 1960's. What if they spent the money restoring some of them to flying status, so we could see and hear them flying again, a much more fitting memorial to those who fought IMHO. But we aren't going to be seeing either I'm afraid unless someone knows that they've already got the cash and are going ahead.

Orville,

I understood "beacon", I just don't "see" a beacon there lol. I see a tall, twisty, shiny building that looks more like modern art than a memorial for a battle during WWII.

BTW, I don't dislike the building really, I just don't see the symbolic connection between the BoB and the architecture.

Don't trust the Americans on this one, though...we didn't have a WWII memorial in our nation's capital until a few years ago. Very sad.

Splitter

When I say beacon I mean of the type used when the Spanish Armada was sighted off the British coast. A big stack of tree tunks all leaning against each other and the top half full of straw. Done slightly twisted so it stays upright..

A really basic beacon.

Restore this:

http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/e...h/img_4688.jpg


Or better still the whole of Tangmere.

Now that would be a fitting memorial.

I totally agree with that. We do have a nasty habbit in the UK of ignoring some of the less 'grand' buildings even though they had a lot of historical importance. They get left to rot mostly. Unless they happen to be in central london, then they turn into tourist traps.

Yeah, Lord of the Rings style :). I was with ya. Still, it's too modern. Interesting take off, but I guess I like my monuments understated. If you have to look at it and go, "WTF?" then the designers are trying too hard lol.

I still like the building though (and I like the gherkin, just more in Dubai). Hey, at least they are doing something grand to honor the heroes, have to appreciate that.

Splitter

While my visit in February up there, I noticed some of the engines are leaking oil - they had trays with oil binder under the nacelles.

That's a good sign actually. ;)

Normally a lurker here but I have to say

Very Well Said winny!!

I'm surprised the poster had the nerve to profer the question.

I agree, I think if glass was substituted for the metal it would be fantastic. I think part of the idea behind the tower is that the aircraft are up on display in 3 dimensions (ie with a vertical axis as well where you can view them from above, below and the sides, to give some sense of them being in action rather than just as static exhibits), but ironically just having that slit along the side of tower to provide an exterior view makes it claustrophobic in my opinion. Imagine those interior views where all the walls are transparent instead - you'd really feel as if you were up in the air with them. And also imagine how the tower would look at night with the aircraft inside being illuminated.

By the way, the concept of a tower museum where you start at the top and spiral to the bottom isn't completely new - you move through the Guggenheim Modern Art museum in NY this way.