Surely the primary purpose of a building to house people is to provide warmth and shelter. Another primary consideration is the cost of maintenance. Irrespective of a buildings’ visual appearance, if these primary functions and considerations are either not met, or are only achieved at great cost and effort, then that building has to be considered as poorly designed. One wonders if the building had been more conventional, whether alternative uses for it would have been found? The fact that the building was only functioning for a relatively short time and then abandoned would indicate that the building was fatally flawed. The saga reminds me of Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral - award winning for the architects but poorly constructed and actually architecturally flawed (for example the lack of a proper rainwater drainage system meant that water ingress became a major problem) resulting in various legal battles between the parties concerned.
It would have made a fantastic car park- but the golf course next door isn't one that needs a car park capable of holding thousands- and there's very little else within walking distance. As a shelter for humans, though, in a damp, northerly corner of a damp, northerly country, it's a disaster. Also, Vatican II removed the need for seminaries for hundreds of young men in the year this was opened. Look at whats happened to all the seminaries of Britain and Ireland- even Maynooth. Along with other things, many of which were caused or aggravated by it and the environment around it, Vatican II helped chip away more and more rapidly at our need for any priests at all.
It seems utterly mad that this building (once celebrated as a classic of late 1960s/1970s Brutalist architecture) could have just been completely abandoned to vandals and the elements. Either renovate it and find some new use, or demolish it - surely!?
The question needs to be asked- what does the designation: “A Listed” really mean in the UK and Scotland? Even while taking into account, the special circumstances of the life of that seminary, what does the state of this classic design say about the safety and protection of other A Listed buildings in the United Kingdom, or for that matter, other buildings and structures that should have been protected but were not?
Surely the primary purpose of a building to house people is to provide warmth and shelter. Another primary consideration is the cost of maintenance. Irrespective of a buildings’ visual appearance, if these primary functions and considerations are either not met, or are only achieved at great cost and effort, then that building has to be considered as poorly designed. One wonders if the building had been more conventional, whether alternative uses for it would have been found? The fact that the building was only functioning for a relatively short time and then abandoned would indicate that the building was fatally flawed. The saga reminds me of Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral - award winning for the architects but poorly constructed and actually architecturally flawed (for example the lack of a proper rainwater drainage system meant that water ingress became a major problem) resulting in various legal battles between the parties concerned.
It would have made a fantastic car park- but the golf course next door isn't one that needs a car park capable of holding thousands- and there's very little else within walking distance.
As a shelter for humans, though, in a damp, northerly corner of a damp, northerly country, it's a disaster.
Also, Vatican II removed the need for seminaries for hundreds of young men in the year this was opened. Look at whats happened to all the seminaries of Britain and Ireland- even Maynooth. Along with other things, many of which were caused or aggravated by it and the environment around it, Vatican II helped chip away more and more rapidly at our need for any priests at all.
It seems utterly mad that this building (once celebrated as a classic of late 1960s/1970s Brutalist architecture) could have just been completely abandoned to vandals and the elements. Either renovate it and find some new use, or demolish it - surely!?
The question needs to be asked- what does the designation: “A Listed” really mean in the UK and Scotland? Even while taking into account, the special circumstances of the life of that seminary, what does the state of this classic design say about the safety and protection of other A Listed buildings in the United Kingdom, or for that matter, other buildings and structures that should have been protected but were not?