Tuesday 27 June 2006 3.56pm
Because they are less garish/noticeable/in your face/startling.
I'm in favour of a bit of colour to offset the drab greys, beige and Browns
of steel, concrete and glass (of which Ken's Helmet is a perfectly hideous example) but personally I feel primary colours are too bold and bright and make an eyesore. A brightly coloured building often ages badly (although Ken's helmet is too), it is intrusive and usually not in sympathy with its surroundings. I believe that architecture should stand out for it's design aesthetics not the use of garish colours which, IMHO, is an amateurish, if not childish, effort by less skilled architects to draw attention to their work. The new Home Office building (http://www.hughpearman.com/articles5/homeoffice.html) which is interesting from a design point of view (though I take issue with some aspects of the facade) does not, I believe, require the coloured glass panels. However, at least in the case of the Home Office they are less obtrusive and calmer (pastel?) colours.
My main objection to this Grey/Brown and Orange building is that it is panelled with corrugated metal which, in combination with the garish colours, makes it look cheap and unpleasant. At first I thought it was a quick build Prescott cheapy for key workers but from an earlier posting in this thread it seems not. In a way I could understand why you'd make a cheap pre-fab building in garish colours cos it gives it some spirit and character that it otherwise wouldn't have (due to low architectural input/imagination) and probably helps to lift the spirits of those unfortunate enough to find themselves living there!