Those timber fins look numerous,expensive and sharp cornered.

Numerous?

Think you're being a tad harsh on the timber fins. What about the leaves on the tree, or the blades of grass on the bottom left?

Goodness me - someone better contact one of the best architectural practices in the country and inform them their design is no good! They should really be figuring a way to hold that roof up using the absolute minimum of material and the absolute minimum cost.

And I will get on to the H&S Executive before one of the little darlings slicing themselves in half running full pelt at the expensive monstrosity. If only they could figure a way to smooth the corners off somehow.

For what it's worth - this looks ok, without the benefit of seeing any other material. It is a shame there is always usually a dearth of images presented with a news story on UR. The text isnt all that in depth, and 1 image on its own is pretty much next to useless.

It would be nice to see a section and how the height of the canopy relates to the scale of a child. Always remember going back to my primary school years later as a proper grown up and the low height of the corridor ceilings and the little benches and things was excellent and such a simple nod to the users. Of course, in this scheme it might not suit the proportion of the fins to be a bit more squat, but then you could save half the cash!

That tree in the wee courtyard looks nice but if it grows any bigger it'll have the roof off!

Rem: thought you said this was by one of the best architectura ....... oh, right, get it. Don't see how anyone can judge the design on the basis of the image shown and suggest RES deserves more comment than this relatively minor development. Is this a loggia with a wee shed tacked onto an existing big shed?

Nice tricycle.

I agreee that there is not enough info to judge the design - this is UR failing. The image presented though is of enough quality that you can get a feel for at least one of the spaces - and it looks like the main space.

Anyway, all schemes are worthy of comment/constructive criticism not just the main city centre proposals.

@ Alan Park - that's a laughable comment.

Care to explain why RES is somehow more 'worthy' of comment than this? Surely the point of having a website like this is to promote a bit of debate...not just for big city-centre devs either.

But I digress, I should be spending some time formulating a devastating response for the RES page. My sincere apologies.

Art - My comment is laughable? So, what you mean is promote debate as long as you agree with the subject and content. Get a life or get some work to keep your mind more gainfully employed

Haha, calm down.

All I was meaning was that nobody can say whether a particular project is more 'comment worthy' than another...surely everything is up for discussion?