RAF Museum Unveils the Battle of Britain Beacon

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

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.

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.

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.

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

[swiss]

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.

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.

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

Originally Posted by swiss

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.

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.

Cheers.

[Flying Pencil]

Originally Posted by Feuerfalke

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.

Agree, there is no link.

It is history, not modern art.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Frantishek

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

[jameson]

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.

[Splitter]

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

[winny]

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.

[WTE_Galway]

Restore this:




Or better still the whole of Tangmere.

Now that would be a fitting memorial.

[winny]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

Restore this:



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.