Looks nice.

Tae G1 architects fur when ye read this: ignore the protestations ae the concrete modernist brigade an all thur "it's pastiche" rantin. That's aw they've got -- wee, cliché complaints that make thum feel pure intelligent fur the mere fact thur critiquing something which has beauty in it an which confronts their ane monstrosities ae architecture.They cannae handle somethin which has ambition in it -- a dumbed doon lefty wurld seeks tae degrade oor built environments tae match their ane degraded inner self.

I support this. We need mare buildings with sensitivity.

#1: Can you explain exactly what you mean by "sensitivity" and how that term actually relates to this design without resorting to cliche complaints?

Worryingly, you have started to become a sad parody of what could be considered as an important and critical debate and I am quite disappointed that UR felt it worthwhile to publish your spurious and nonsensical ramblings.

Tae Bill in #2

Yet again, ye ignore the topic at hand an focus on my views. Can you lefties no stand dissenting opinsions?

And wit's wae the facsist moaning regarding UR allowing people tae voice their opinions -- ones which arnae tae ur liking? De ye want everyhing banned which disagrees wae ye?

As fur the sensitivity term: I like this building becoz it's traditional in aesthetic, suits the character ae the town and isnae another wonky angled mess designed without thought and feeling by 'modernist' architects who seek tae ignore every context but their ane ideologically driven leftism architecture views.

Holler.

For a start, the topic in hand was raised by you hence my response.

In addition, you'll note that in my reply that I suggested this topic was worthy of critical debate, it's just that you have managed to whittle it down to colloquialisms and repeated diatribe, hence removing any merit of further discussion. I of course welcome critical opinions, just not the repetitive bile that you seem to spew. And there was no hint of suggestion of banning, I said I was "disappointed" in UR.

As to your analysis; it is not in St. Andrews - it is on a site outwith the town, arable in nature surrounded by low lying farmland.

The existing steading is completely dwarfed by this alien form and has, by a mere token sentence from the Architects, been allowed to remain in the potential future use as a boutique spa. The height, detailing, massing, material detailing, scale and form of the proposed club-house is detrimental to the context, and bears no relationship whatsoever to the existing steading. Again, I ask, where is the sensitive design here?

I particularly enjoy the drawbridge crossing the moat.

In particular, I am lamenting the loss of empire at this moment in time.
Long live the king!
Huzzah! Huzzah! Huzzah!

Good grief, it actually looks like a Golf Clubhouse. well done the architects. Praise where its due . Only need to get planning consent now and doubtless Fife Planners will not think it is "modern" enough.

It does look like a golf clubhouse. Well done!

By the way Bill S.
I think you will find it is on a site that is Leisure by nature, surrounded by a golf course. So this should fit in nicely.

Mafeking has been relieved, I hear?
Jolly good show!

There does appear to be quite a lot of chimneys, are there really that many open fires inside?