Cloistered courtyard invites guests to a reimagined Carnbooth Hotel
April 5 2018
Housing a function room and brasserie the new addition will entail a number of alterations to be made to the rear of the hotel, increasing the number of bedrooms on offer and augmenting plans to build a number of new flats within the wooded hotel grounds.
An additional 31 bedrooms will be arranged around a cloistered courtyard and garden with new facilities including a subterranean spa and a function suite enjoying southerly views across Kittoch Water.
Outlining their inspiration behind the build the architects wrote: “The cloistered courtyard will provide a beautiful setting appropriate for the arrival of a wedding. We have taken inspiration from the Vajrasana Buddhist Retreat Centre in Bury St Edmunds by Walters and Cohen Architects, along with the Serpentine Pavilion by Atelier Zumthor.
“These spaces, introspective and inward looking and beautiful, are a suitable example of the type of space to both protect from the Scottish weather (below the cloister) but to celebrate a special day or event.”
A materials palette consisting of red rosemary tiles, dressed red sandstone, blackened timber and white harling are proposed to marry with the existing hotel.
Each element has pitched roofs with falls respecting the existing house
The new roof ridgeline is kept subservient to that of the historic home
|
11 Comments
#2 Posted by Pretentious Cribber on 5 Apr 2018 at 16:59 PM
Love the roof, although there are some odd looking details, principally the floating red stone eaves course thingy, why bother!?..oh yeah, to 'marry' with the existing building.
But the existing building doesn't have silly floating planes of stone and a plethora of materials finishes. The courtyard stone course appears to be supported with timber...why? a more simple/rational hierarchy of materials and structure would be more successful, relevant to the site and be buildable…erm, as in Walters and Cohen’s Vajrasana or the Serpentine Pavilion!
All a bit clumsy and confused.
But the existing building doesn't have silly floating planes of stone and a plethora of materials finishes. The courtyard stone course appears to be supported with timber...why? a more simple/rational hierarchy of materials and structure would be more successful, relevant to the site and be buildable…erm, as in Walters and Cohen’s Vajrasana or the Serpentine Pavilion!
All a bit clumsy and confused.
#3 Posted by Rampage on 5 Apr 2018 at 21:56 PM
Another 'meh' scheme from Cameron Loader to complete the set with that boat shed thing out at Strathclyde Park. Need to up their game a bit I think.
#4 Posted by Mr Boring on 6 Apr 2018 at 09:18 AM
@#3 - what a miserable comment! Post some of your own work to show us how its done.
I really like this well done to CW and LM for putting forward such a creative and spirited proposal.
I really like this well done to CW and LM for putting forward such a creative and spirited proposal.
#5 Posted by boaby wan on 6 Apr 2018 at 09:54 AM
@ Mr Boring - why is it necessary for anyone being critical to post some of their own work? Architectural critique is no more or less valid if the critic shows examples of their own work, it is a nonsense that is repeated over and over again on here, presumably "Rampage" hasn't had this commission or time to prepare an alternative scheme before lodging their comment.
#6 Posted by Mr Boring on 6 Apr 2018 at 10:21 AM
@#5 - I wouldn't call comment #3 architectural critique. Just curious to see what qualifies #3 to be so dismissive.
Small creative practices like CM & LM are going out there and making it happen and the architectural community needs to be supportive of this.
Small creative practices like CM & LM are going out there and making it happen and the architectural community needs to be supportive of this.
#7 Posted by boaby wan on 6 Apr 2018 at 11:24 AM
ahh, I see Mr Boring, you decide who can and can't pass comment on anything by interrogating previous experience and qualifications? and you also decide whether any critique at all is allowed in case it's deemed not supportive of firms "making it happen", can you please give us a run down of what firms we are not allowed to comment on?
#8 Posted by BigYin on 6 Apr 2018 at 15:36 PM
I agree with Mr Boring... Although Rampage is totally free to voice an opinion its just a throw away, pessimistic comment. It would be more useful to give us some rationale for the comment and, whilst we don't need to see your CV and portfollio, some ideas of how you would deal with the project also help to get a good debate going.
#9 Posted by Mr Boring on 6 Apr 2018 at 16:10 PM
@#7 - I think you're off on a tangent.
#10 Posted by boaby wan on 6 Apr 2018 at 19:04 PM
@8 - tbf, one person saying that the scheme is a bit 'meh' is just as good a comment as Mr Boring's 'I like this', the only difference is that Mr Boring decided that he needs to see the qualifications of others to judge on how valid the comment is... pretty boring indeed - maybe some thoughts or discussion on the actual scheme would be more useful rather than the academic and professional experience of the poster
#11 Posted by Mr Exciting on 9 Apr 2018 at 10:55 AM
Good chat. Have to say I fully agree with boaby wan here. Sure, maybe #3 could've given more of a fleshed out critique, but id hate to see a situation where only the sanctioned few are allowed a voice and the rest sit in subservient silence. No way man. All comments equal on UR.
As it happens I actually quite like the scheme from what is shown. Though id suggest some attention is need on how the geometry of the roof works as it turns the internal corner. Something not quite right about it in that first image.
As it happens I actually quite like the scheme from what is shown. Though id suggest some attention is need on how the geometry of the roof works as it turns the internal corner. Something not quite right about it in that first image.
Post your comments
Back to April 2018
Like us on Facebook
Become a fan and share
News Archive
Search News
Features & Reports
For more information from the industry visit our Features & Reports section.
Are we going to be looking back in a few years wondering what architects were thinking like you do when you see some 60's/70's additions to these big houses?