This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Umm, why does the list of brutalist buildings on Brutalist architecture list the Cameron offices as demolished? -- Martyman- (talk) 05:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Is it far to use the phrase "Design Flaws" in this article? What we may consider a flaw in 2006+ wasn't necessarily a flaw in the 1970's. I've been to these buildings, and while they represent a period that has past, fail to see the design approach as "flawed". It may be of interest to some, but John Andrews was awarded a sizable judgment (in the early 1980's?) against an Australian Newspaper magnet that had reported what turned out to be un-defendable claims of "design flaws". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick0289 ( talk • contribs)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Umm, why does the list of brutalist buildings on Brutalist architecture list the Cameron offices as demolished? -- Martyman- (talk) 05:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Is it far to use the phrase "Design Flaws" in this article? What we may consider a flaw in 2006+ wasn't necessarily a flaw in the 1970's. I've been to these buildings, and while they represent a period that has past, fail to see the design approach as "flawed". It may be of interest to some, but John Andrews was awarded a sizable judgment (in the early 1980's?) against an Australian Newspaper magnet that had reported what turned out to be un-defendable claims of "design flaws". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick0289 ( talk • contribs)