Architecture enthusiasts are discussing three notable building projects this week, with particular praise for a Canterbury school that successfully combines traditional materials with contemporary design. The Rausing Science Centre by Walters Cohen has garnered significant positive feedback from readers for its thoughtful approach to context and materiality.
Located alongside an entrance to Canterbury's cathedral precincts, The Rausing Science Centre was designed to balance a traditional material palette of flint, oak, and limestone with what architects describe as a "crisp and contemporary" approach. The building has impressed readers with its respectful integration into the historic setting.
Reader Jerry Dickman-Wilkes praised the project, writing "Beautiful execution and attention to detail - magnificent!" Another commenter known as The Truth called it "a thoughtful and pleasant design," adding that "this sort of respect for scale, context and materiality is not often seen in contemporary additions." Karl appreciated the straightforward approach, commenting "Fancy that - a handsome, compact, efficient building, constructed of quality materials, with no arbitrary angles."
However, not all feedback was universally positive. Reader Chris expressed some reservations, stating "I dig the materiality, but it looks like a village building shoehorned into an academic campus - odd." Despite this critique, the majority of commenters, including Souji who called it "very nice, a step in the right direction," viewed the design favorably.
Meanwhile, a Buenos Aires skyscraper by Adamo Faiden has generated more mixed reactions among architecture critics. The building features a green-pigmented concrete facade and a series of cantilevers, positioned among historic warehouses in the Argentine capital. Johan found the structure "quite elegant and a lovely shade of green" that "works very nicely with the historic warehouses."
Matheus Seco enthusiastically supported the Buenos Aires project, declaring "Back to the essentials! Beautiful and simple details" and calling it "a superb building!" However, other readers were less convinced by the design approach. Idracula noted that while it appeared "graphically interesting" from a distance, up close it seemed "pretty banal." Souji was particularly critical, describing it as "oppressive and inelegant" and dismissing it as "more of the same mediocre stuff we are used to."
The third project generating discussion was Snøhetta's headquarters building for automotive company Ford in Michigan, which features an engineering-focused central building. This project received the most critical response from readers, with many finding the design overly sterile and generic.
Rickboxer summed up a common sentiment, commenting "Clean! Bright! Umm and sterile," while questioning "How about even a dab of color somewhere?" Alfred Hitchcock drew parallels between the building and the company's automotive products, arguing "it's nicely polished, but it's like Ford's cars - trying to please everyone and exciting no one." He characterized the design as "middle of the road stuff."
The criticism of the Ford headquarters continued with Souji calling it "a mess and a bore," while JZ felt "it feels massively generic." The consensus among commenters suggests that while the building may be technically competent, it lacks the character and distinctive design elements that would make it memorable or inspiring.
These discussions highlight ongoing debates in contemporary architecture about the balance between functionality and aesthetic appeal, as well as the importance of contextual design that respects historical settings while embracing modern building techniques and materials.
