Acle Bridge Vanity Project

[JennyMorgan]

All three submissions have one thing in common, their sheer size. Each could probably house several hundred people at any one time. Where are all these people coming from and how are they getting there? By coach or car, all very well, but where are they going to park, the footprint of those buildings leaves little space for visitor parking. Okay, so they are coming by boat, umm, not that many moorings. I appreciate that the Broads is more than just boats and that a broad catheral of interests needs to be catered for but then does it need to be so 'in our faces' on the river bank? 

All in all it reeks of proflicate vanity and in planning terms I suggest double standards verging on hypocracy. I don't have a favourite, all three finalists have merit. I do question their scale in relation to their surroundings and I certainly question the need. If it's Packman's swan-song pre retirement then so be it.  Lets be honest though, it does smack of a church building, it would be a monument to a non existant national park and very clearly self agrandisment. The Broads is 120 miles of waterway, one of the smallest members of the NP family, does that really warrant this 'statement' intrusion onto the landscape? 

A previous vanity project, Dragonfly House, was a financial disaster, do we really have to go down that route again?

[JennyMorgan]

6 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Is dat me den?

 

Depends on how many pickled eggs and pints of ale you consume, Rocket Man!

[grendel]

its not true I tell you, I have never seen MM eating lettuce

[MauriceMynah]

I've got lettuce after my name, but that's just the tip of the iceburg.

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

All three submissions have one thing in common, their sheer size. Each could probably house several hundred people at any one time. Where are all these people coming from and how are they getting there? By coach or car, all very well, but where are they going to park, the footprint of those buildings leaves little space for visitor parking. Okay, so they are coming by boat, umm, not that many moorings. I appreciate that the Broads is more than just boats and that a broad catheral of interests needs to be catered for but then does it need to be so 'in our faces' on the river bank? 

All in all it reeks of proflicate vanity and in planning terms I suggest double standards verging on hypocracy. I don't have a favourite, all three finalists have merit. I do question their scale in relation to their surroundings and I certainly question the need. If it's Packman's swan-song pre retirement then so be it.  Lets be honest though, it does smack of a church building, it would be a monument to a non existant national park and very clearly self agrandisment. The Broads is 120 miles of waterway, one of the smallest members of the NP family, does that really warrant this 'statement' intrusion onto the landscape? 

A previous vanity project, Dragonfly House, was a financial disaster, do we really have to go down that route again?

Didn't Hans Christian Anderson write about something similar except the subject matter was some clothing?  

[marshman]

As you all know, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I am pleased to see others like some of the  designs too - as MM quite rightly says that stretch of the river is hardly full of architectural merit!

But then, I like the addition at Hunsett Mill - with the exception of the windows which I guess will not stand the test of time. I personally think that if the project does go ahead then it needs a stand out eye catching design - you see I love the Louvre but guess many hate that too!

So yes, of course there are differing views of every new building but people should also consider that life would be very boring if all buildings were the same - Grand Designs shows that not all modernity is just rubbish!!!

[JennyMorgan]

A building doesn't have to be over sized in order to stand out, just well designed. 

[Stationerystill]

The buildings are all too high. I remember when I owned a Thurne bungalow the B.A. were complaining about owners raising them up too high to avoid flooding. They also opposed two storey bungalows and yet here are very tall buildings which cost more to maintain and build. It makes more sense to build something low profile in timber with a pantile roof to blend in with the Broads area. These grand designs are just a vanity project.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

A building doesn't have to be over sized in order to stand out, just well designed. 

Well designed, functional and fits in with local environment; surely?

[MauriceMynah]

I think I'll ever disagree with Marshman about Hunsett but such is life! but for a moment lets look at the Acle bridge project for what it is, though I am going to make a bit of a leap of faith here.

I do not know what condition the current building is in structurally speaking, but in reality it IS an old wooden structure and therefore probably at the end of it's economically viable life. For the moment lets say that this is the case so it has to go. Please humour me here and we ill say that the loos behind are also finished for whatever reason.

What to take the place of those two?

Well, what ever goes there is going to be designed by an architect, and all architects want to make a statement, to leave their mark on the landscape, sorry folks but that's just the way it is.

However, I would have run this "competition" a little differently, and in addition to the brief given,

Firstly I'd have added that it was open to all residents of East Anglia. or at least the generally the Broadland area. Reasons? Use local talent, have local designer answerable for the design.

Second I'd have stipulated that it would be local tradesmen who would be building it from materials sourced from local suppliers.

I am not in any way alarmed at the height of the planned structure, and if it is so eye catching that it takes the mind away from the rather boring bridge, and the corrugated metal constructions opposite, so much the better. The view of the area that such a tall structure could afford surely must be held in mind..

Whatever is built there, it will me modern in design, and regrettably I have to concede that so it should be. We may hate it, but generations to come, should it stand the test of time, will be slapping preservation orders on it.

I wonder what the locals thought when Thurne Windpump was first painted white!

[TheQ]

One of the problems with allowing all this modern design is you are losing the broads as it was. When I first came here Wroxham by the river was a mass of wooden sheds. Now it's a lot of Identikit housing. The building that replaced the wooden fish restaurant is another Identikit building that could be anywhere. The fact that wooden buildings were all over the broads were part of the broads...

A single story with thatched roof, would be much more in keeping with the broads..

[Chelsea14Ian]

Surely all these designs are to big as Peter said.You can have good design but able to fit in with the surrounding area.London is full of  award winning designs,many however are a blot on the landscape.

[grendel]

there was a song written many years ago, and that reflects my opinions on most architects plans I have seen - though there are a few exceptions. the lyrics of this song are as follows -

Quote

Little boxes on the hillside,
Little boxes made of ticky tacky,
Little boxes on the hillside,
Little boxes all the same.
There's a green one and a pink one 
And a blue one and a yellow one,
And they're all made out of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same.

And the people in the houses
All went to the university,
Where they were put in boxes
And they came out all the same,
And there's doctors and lawyers,
And business executives,
And they're all made out of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same.

though I may have a biased outlook on this as the area we are working is generally London, who knows, elsewhere in the country the aesthetics of the building may hold some sway, rather than just how many apartments they can cram into how small a space for the maximum return.

[TheQ]

 

[Bound2Please]

11 minutes ago, TheQ said:

 

Bloody hell its been a while since I last heard that ..........................

[Vaughan]

I stayed in one of those holiday cottages in Wroxham a couple of weeks ago and thought they were quite pleasant. Given that you want holiday housing on the river there, rather than boatyards, I'm not sure how it would be done better. I'm not sure if they were designed by Peter Dunham but they may have been. He did a lot of work on the Broads in the 70s and 80s - for example, all the new houses on Lower St in Horning which replaced Percivals and Banhams boatyards. Also on the riverfront at Coltishall, where Clifford Allen's yard was. He also did the first design for the Wherry Trust base on Womack dyke.

A good example of his work is the Ludham Marine building at the end of Womack Water. Have another look at that when you are next passing, and imagine something like it on the bank at Acle Bridge. I think it would be much more suitable.

That is, of course, if you think we need a building there in the first place!   

[Timbo]

I must add my voice to that of Maurice Mynah in affirming Hunsett is a carbuncle. One that needs lancing in my opinion. I really like his idea of opening out the competition yet making sure it was 'local'. Local firms, local materials and to designs chosen by the stakeholders in the Broads. Let's see these other entries?

I do have to disagree with him though on 'slapping preservation orders'. I've never once 'slapped' a PO, I carefully ponder the merit of the structure before 'deliberately placing' my recommendation for a PO.

I attend more than a few meetings with architects looking to make a statement on the landscape. I met one last year who seemed to be doing a good impression of Pablo Picasso complete with beret and Gitanes cigarette. He seemed to have taken my comment to 'have a word wi yer sen' to heart as he missed his own presentation. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against good modern architecture. But that's the point. 'Good modern architecture'. 

I think Vaughan hit the nail squarely on the head. Do we need a development in that location and is that development suitable? I can tell you that I passed the site on Sunday and it took me over three-quarters of an hour to do so. This was due to a traffic accident and queues of traffic backing up in all directions.

[MauriceMynah]

And there it is, there's the problem...

Do we want something in keeping  ( all the same, ticky tacky etc. ) or not in keeping  ( Modern, different leading edge etc.)

Yes there is a middle way, "new but with homage" though as with the first two options, as many dislike it as don't.

I would imagine that the majority of the readership here are of … shall we say... mature years. This by it's very nature will mean it more inclined towards tradition. Just my view.

[rightsaidfred]

I am not going to comment on the designs as one mans meat is another mans poison and we all have differing opinions on what is aesthetically pleasing, I wont even bother with the initial cost as that is obviously  a fait accompli, what concerns me most is the cost of sustaining the proposals as an ongoing operation, given the history of the shop/tea rooms over the last few years the income wont be sufficient to make them a profitable business particularly when you have the pub and Pedros just across the bridge and given the location with no particular attractions the rest is unlikely to prove a sustainable visitor centre so the big question is where does the burden of the cost of maintaining all this fall who pays the bill.

Fred 

[JennyMorgan]

Modern can be great and can stand the test of time, witness Coventry Cathedral.

However, at Acle, the design should surely be sympathetic and in harmony with its surroundings, culture and tradition. That doesn't exclude modern. Indeed I like the style of the long building however it would come at a cost of a dozen or so moorings but if I had to choose then I would ask that architect to do the job and in that general style.

 

[MauriceMynah]

3 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

However, at Acle, the design should surely be sympathetic and in harmony with its surroundings, culture and tradition.

Go to Acle bridge and look at the "surroundings"  and whilst you might feel sympathy, I douibt you'd want a new build to be in "harmony" .

[JennyMorgan]

1 minute ago, MauriceMynah said:

Go to Acle bridge and look at the "surroundings"  and whilst you might feel sympathy, I douibt you'd want a new build to be in "harmony" .

Surroundings as in The Broads, excluding the tacky delights of Wroxham or Gt Yarmouth!

[Minifer]

9 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Modern can be great and can stand the test of time, witness Coventry Cathedral.

However, at Acle, the design should surely be sympathetic and in harmony with its surroundings, culture and tradition. That doesn't exclude modern. Indeed I like the style of the long building however it would come at a cost of a dozen or so moorings but if I had to choose then I would ask that architect to do the job and in that general style.

 

You've surprised me there JM!   No 1 is still my favourite, and I have just realised the design is by Feilden & Mawson who are based in Norwich and designed the floating visitor centre at Ranworth years ago.  I have to now admit I had an unknown bias as my father was an architect for them for most of his working life.  The other submissions are not local architects.   I was wondering if No. 3 is meant to echo the cap of a windmill/windpump?  It is an odd shape.  I am struggling a bit with the sails one, it seems a bit too Sydney Opera House derivative for me.  But it is a Norfolk shape we can all recognise.

[Meantime]

I feel some how very uncomfortable at the BA building a visitor centre right opposite a site where they turned down proposals by The Broadland Boating Company for glamping pods which would have accommodated visitors!!!!

Anyone been past the WRC recently and seen the way the glamping pods and yurts are proliferating there? Now obviously someone knows how to play the system and the other is very new to the game, but the BA do not need to rub the new kid on the blocks nose in it.

Perhaps the BA should go back to being the planning authority and let some one else do the building? I wonder how many people didn't even bother looking at the Acle Bridge site because they thought planning would be such a pain in the you know what and therefore not worth the bother. For the BA to come along and over develop the site would be very bad form in my eyes.

[Vaughan]

25 minutes ago, Minifer said:

I am struggling a bit with the sails one, it seems a bit too Sydney Opera House derivative for me.  But it is a Norfolk shape we can all recognise.

Well sorry, but I can't!

If that has something to do with sailing, I wouldn't know if it was on starboard tack or port.