...Hmmm.

I am beginning to think that the way society through architects approach the design of significant buildings and the subsequent post-rationalisation of design for the planning and consultation process (through a prescribed modified CABE design statement) may have had its day. This has to be such an example.

Having looked at the images of the Masterplan, read through the (7-part) design statement (there's a clue) and the ADS response, something is clearly adrift here, or just plain wrong. If this design is what can be produced through this system of faux analysis then I believe this 'method of working' is a dead end.

Part of the problem is language. No one uses this language of disassembling, undrawing and codifying other than architects. So who are architects communicating to other than themselves? (I suspect no one)

Having witnessed the role of the architect diminish significantly through industrialisation of the building process and specialisation, the increased aesthetic planning role and where everyone's an expert on all matters, I think this example shows the architect as clutching at straws in a way. Or drowning, not waving if you'd prefer.

Changing times, changing milieu, changing everything, but not the way architects turgidly explain their designs to the wider community. The sheer volume of objections (however well-orchestrated) makes this simple point. I would suggest that Architects have to scrutinise closely HOW they illustrate their proposals and HOW they design buildings in the public realm.

Self-evidently, this proposal in contextual townscape terms is clearly inappropriate. It reminds me of a medium-sized historic Italian town in Mussolini's 1940's getting a ideological modernist public building in the town centre with the accompanying piazza, from which to revere the power of the state.

Other European countries just wouldn't have this issue. Wait a minute, we're leaving ...

I bet it would have looked good

To be fair the Architect had to work to the financial constraints of the Scottish Governments Hub Costs matrix

Hands up who wants to pay more tax so we can have a better building on this site ?

@ No. 1

Thank you for your lecture.

@ No. 1
Have a snickers...

On a more serious note, I agree in general that public buildings should have a presence and give more to the surrounding area than just house the council workers, however at the end of the day in our current climate budget is king and as Rod fairly comments people are not willing to pay more tax for a fancy council office.
I do laugh at Patrick Larimer's comments regarding relating new elevations to the existing. What neighbouring building of quality is he wishing they used as a reference? Yes there is room for development on the design shown, its not great but its not exactly a disaster. That part of Ayr is full of architectural horror stories! The area needs strong confident architecture in order to revitalise and encourage people into a town that is not fulfilling its potential.
If anyone wishes to discuss further I'll be in Billy Bridges!

Am I surprised that a council can take its own application all the way through to committee, with a recommendation for approval, then refuse it? Not really. It just demonstrates that 'here today and gone tomorrow' toon cooncillors shouldn't have any say on how we develop our towns and cities.

I think the only next step is for the council to appeal against its own decicion and then sue for costs.

A complete farce...but par for the course for South Ayrshire Council. Just look at Ayr town centre; is been decimated by a series of poorly considered 'development' decisions and now the piece de resistance of the council rejecting it's own application!
SAC have soiled their own bed; they should be left with the mess they have created.