BMW DEALERSHIP, BEDDINGTON, LONDON BY TALBOT CONSTRUCTION

Car dealerships are a breed of their own in British architecture. I don't know whether there are dedicated building regulations for them, or quite how this genus of the species 'bad architecture' has developed in the way it has. They always look uniquely clipped together and temporary. It is as if car dealership design has developed on Easter Island: you can see where it came from, but at some point it stopped having any relationship with the rest of the construction industry.
The constructional logic is derived from the sign - a structure with clipped-on symbols. Like all buildings like this, the cladding system is a law unto itself with strangely small panels contrasting with the over large and annoyingly reflective glazing. Look at the picture above: in its vertical expression, there is no hierarchy between glazing member, structural column, downpipe and advertising hoarding.
This is unreal architecture, the same wherever it appears. It embodies nothing about BMW, nothing about the excitement of the expensive machines inside. It's the kind of building that shoddy planning authorities allow to pollute the roadside when they can't think of anything else to do with a site.
By the way, I love that this super-generic building intended to promote carbon-guzzling machines is in the same town as the godmother of eco developments, BedZed. Way to have a joined-up strategy, London Borough of Croydon.

SWALLOW FIELDS HOUSING IN TIPTON, WEST MIDLANDS BY CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT SOLUTIONS

THIS BUILDING IS THE DEVIL, IT IS THE ENEMY, IT IS SO UNREMITTINGLY FUCKING GRIM THAT IT'S HARD TO EVEN LOOK AT THE PICTURE WITHOUT IT DAMAGING YOU.
IT'S A COMBINATION OF BOTCHED CURTAIN WALLING, WINDOWS THAT DON'T FIT THE HOLES THEY'RE IN, ALL TOPPED OFF WITH A HAT THAT LOOKS LIKE AN ARMY SENTRY POST IN WEST BELFAST. JUST NEEDS A BIG FUCKING GUN TURRET ON TOP AND IT WOULD FIT RIGHT IN.
SMALL OBSERVATION - I CAN HONESTLY SAY THAT I'VE NEVER SEEN EFFLORESCENCE ON THE MORTAR BETWEEN TERRACOTTA BOLLOCKING TILES.
THIS BUILDING WAS SHORTLISTED FOR A FUCKING AWARD. IT COULD HAVE WALKED AWAY WITH 'BEST RSL-LED LARGE DEVELOPMENT' AT THE AFFORDABLE HOME OWNERSHIP AWARDS. ADMITTEDLY THAT IS NOT A PARTICULARLY COMPETITIVE CONTEXT, BUT FOR FUCK'S SAKE. THE REF MUST HAVE BEEN BLIND.
APPARENTLY 'THE CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT SOLUTIONS TEAM IS RECOGNISED THROUGHOUT THE MIDLANDS FOR ITS EXPERTISE AND INNOVATION.' EVERYONE IN THE FUCKING MIDLANDS SHOULD GET OUT MORE.

LEYLAND BUS REDEVELOPMENT, LEYLAND BY STEVEN ABBOTT ASSOCIATES AND TAYLOR YOUNG

Urban design in Britain must be about the worst in the civilised world. This masterplan shows why, with a variety of autumnal shades used to demonstrate how little clue we have about making real streets, real neighbourhoods or real connections with the fabric of the city. Look at the perimeter, to start with. The site is almost entirely removed from any engagement with its context by lines of trees. Look at the shared surfaces at the road junctions - a shitty brown colour picks out the spaces that no kids will play on (still too dangerous) but that will cause maximum annoyance to motorists. Look at the sub-Brookside close in the bottom left. This is town planning done at the developer's behest, with no regard to what makes a town work. There's no real public space, just the semi-private kind masquerading. Look at the small blue spots - these denote what the architect refers to as 'garden squares'. They look more like car parks to me. Urban planning in this country has assimilated the propaganda about placemaking from bodies like CABE, and carried on doing the same old crap the housebuilders always wanted from its pathetically pliant consultants. Here are some of the houses:

Oceans of indeterminate watercoloured green space and some sketchy housing helpfully obscured by the trees. A party wall (to the left) left white because they don't know what to fucking do with it. That's a problem that English architecture has had for 300 years, and the designers of this scheme don't even try to dignify the problem.

So, why are these houses so awful? Roger Lomas of Taylor Young can enlighten us: "The objective of the proposals was to create homes not houses, places not spaces and a community rather than an estate." I wonder how they're measuring such scientific metrics?

Urban designers in this country talk crap all the time, government-approved crap that reassures planners while pulling the wool over their eyes time and again.
The elevations? You'll be sorry you asked...

DAVINGTON PRIMARY SCHOOL, FAVERSHAM BY CATTELL SKINNER DESIGN PARTNERSHIP

I'm torn over this one. I think the architect tried hard. It's just an awful result. You can see what they were trying to do - some very small clerestoreys and banded brickword probably made them feel a bit like Jim Stirling. But it just ends up looking like a faux-postmodern lock up. I congratulate the photographer on waiting for sunny weather, but it doesn't make much difference, does it?

SPOT THE DIFFERENCE, BY ARCHIAL AND THE UNIVERSITY OF BATH

Well, well, well. Archial appears to read our blog. The BBC has covered its proposal for a 'sustainable' house made of Hempcrete (as if it's the first time anyone had ever thought of it). But Auntie said that the proposal was from the University of Bath, rather than this blog's favourite shit architect. We, dear reader, know different.
The image that the BBC ran (the second from the top) is a little less architect-ed up, but it's the same old shit. Archial/Bath Uni couldn't even be bothered to change the angle of the visualisation. The thing I'm sure about is that they saw our comments about how bad the render of the render looked, and took the Tipp-ex to it. Now we have a pristine, white 1980s executive home rather than a slightly grey one.
Thing I'm wondering is, which one came first? Did they add the timber adornments to charm the design press, or did they remove them because the BBC wouldn't understand the architectural sophistication of the timber proposal? What did Archial pay the University of Bath to keep its name out of the frame for this hideous concoction?
Whoever created the BBC version even toned down the lens flare. Which reminds me...

EXCHANGE PLACE, FOUNTAINBRIDGE OFFICES IN EDINBURGH BY CRE8 ARCHITECTURE

With many thanks to one keen-to-be-anonymous reader, I bring you this commercial development by an architecture practice with a truly embarassing name. Who 's have thought that the word/number hybrid Cre8 (are there 8 of them?) would find its way into architecture? According to Google, Cre8 has already been used by a 'concept design and marketing' company, a photography agency and an organisation that 'exists to provide kids and teenagers with an opportunity to develop creative arts skills in a Christian environment'. Even so, these guys felt that there was still mileage in the brand.
As for the building, it's a combination of corporate cityscape style (see most of central Leeds) with a smoked glass 'feature'. The corner's a great lesson to us all. When you really can't decide to do a curve or a sharp corner, do both!
My correspondent on this one coined a beautiful phrase to describe the checkerboard facade treatment and gives an eye witness' detailed critique: "If you notice on the second image, those bizarre vertical bits of fridge magnet cladding are a different finish to the other cladding elsewhere on the building. Otherwise, it looks like sketchup. Exactly like sketchup." I couldn't have put it better myself.