Siting:
Although not directly tailared to the specifie site, the building's cruciform shape establishes axial relationships in all four directions and thereby relates weil to the other buildings and spaces. The Jury commented favorably on the generous terrace whose sensitive shape relates well to the site.
Internal Planning:
Although the ground floor is generally gaod, the rest of the planning is quite involved, with little or no flexibility. This, of course, is a direct result of the arbitrary form with its resultant restrictions. The lower floor is inviting and appears to have exciting possibilities, but the other floors are congested and tortuous in their access to and arrangement of departments. The circulation around the Council Chamber is very restricted. The interiors and departmental layouts are complex and confused. The proposed extension on ground level is poor.
Exteriors:
Symbolically fine, but the upper mass is disappointing in its development: in the Preliminary Stage it had had a delicacy of scale which contrasted weil with the heavy structure below; furthermore it had had strong potential sculptural qualities which were subsequently sacrificed for a certain crudity resulting from the overhanging masses.
Interiors:
Complexity of planning prevented the development of distinctive interiors, except for the monumentality of the inviting entrance.
Structure:
Relatively expensive: the tour de force of great cantilevers 50 high above the terrace seems hardly worthwhile in the results os shown. Yet, in the Preliminary Stage the boldness and daring of the structure gave promise of great monumentality and symbolism.
Over-all Concept:
A bold imaginative concept with excellent potentialities which failed to "come off" in the Final Stage.
(From jury report)
12 scanned / 12 viewable
- Photograph of Model
- Plan
- Plan
- Elevation
- Elevation
- Section
- Sketch
- Sketch
- Sketch
- Sketch
- Sketch
- Photograph of Model
