if anything you've got it the wrong way round. Sure it's grey, but there's nothing fascistic about it at all (I'm not sure that buildings can be fascist, although the appreciation of some buildings in a way that denies their meaning is a kind of fascism). It's a kind of three-dimensional love affair with the human form. The members, the construction all reach down from the fast overall scale of the building to have a kind of conversation with people's hands and feet. You can see that, despite the vast amount of power consumed to make it (and the building above, which is supported by columns reaching all the way down through the tube station), it was put together by people, and people that employed skill and care. Sir Michael Hopkins has become the architect of the establishment, but he's never lost sight of the fact that people make and inhabit buildings. Labrouste, on the other hand, was obsessed by buildings. That, for an architect is a big mistake to make. He pulls the building off because he has something very pressing to say.Flying_Monkey said:
You've inadvertantly reminded me of the first time I saw Koyaanisqati http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koyaanisqatsi I presume you know that the film attempts to contrast nature and modern life. I watched it in university, and the tutor who presented the film didn't say much, but he had a sly smile on his face. As the film neared it's climax (the horror, the horror) the joke became ever more apparent. The time lapse pictures of people on subway escalators were far, far more beautiful than all those FNRttC brochure sunrises. The entire class, some smart, some not very smart, started whistling and applauding the very bits we were supposed to be repulsed by.
I love the tube. Not being crushed against somebody I don't know, but the huge exercise in civility as all these stories cross each other's paths. Westminster tube station is absolutely how it should be - stories passing each other in civilised and harmonious surroundings.
