You’ll no doubt be pleased to hear that the Arch Centre has indeed got a posting on this very subject:

http://architecture.org.nz/2010/01/25/primo-surpremo-architectural-justice/

I had no idea how interesting the interior design was till I saw the photos. When I remember all the interesting old buildings that have been demolished along Lambton Quay – take the Midland Hotel – I feel sad. Were they demolished in the name of “earthquake risk” or maybe that old Kiwi idea that anything old should be modernised?

The $80 million budget is nothing compared to the billions wasted on bland architecture, which has made many of our towns and cities boring. Whether one loves or hates the design of this spectacular building, the fact that it has caused controversy and debate makes it money well spent.

I applaud the architects’ design, imagination, and courage.

STEPHEN POWELL, Khandallah”

One of the things I found interesting in my trip to the Supreme Court was that there actually IS a bit of entasis in the concrete columns – there is a beautiful soft curve up the column, instead of the usual boring old straight cylinder. Very nice Roy. I like that.

Labrator (614 comments – yee gods) is also a bit off centre with the comment re solid crash barriers. Personally, I think the crash barriers up there are hopelessly twiddled upon by endless doodling. Swoopy this, scratchy that – they’d be better off without all that tat. Still, it gives the motorists something to look at when they’re stuck in a jam….

Nefarious (387) Says:
This morning’s shit was more visually appealing than that fucking monstrosity. Even after a curry last night.
Architects in NZ all seem to have been trained by a combination of Tracy Emin, the bloke who threw shit at canvas and Stevie Wonder but the biggest travesty is some visually impaired fuckwit signed off the cheque for this thing. Without laughing in Warren and Mahoney’s collective face and saying “You are taking the piss, aren’t you?”

Angus (312) Says:
What is it about Wellington which give architects cause to flock there and take the piss?
* The Beehive
* The Cake Tin.
* Te Papa
* The Supreme Court

RRM (1724) Says in response to that:
“THESE concrete columns really really are structural! They support the entire weight of the first floor and the roof.

I’m not really qualified or competent to comment on the architecture. I don’t think it looks any good at all. (Though if the reality had matched the artist’s impression it would have been pretty cool.)

But in New Zealand in the 21st century we don’t need any more fake Greek temples.”

“I do not think you could design a more hideous building if you actually tried to.”

and this coming from a man who lives in Auckland…. has he not looked around his city at all?

The comments from his rabid supporters are more interesting though, at times equally partisan, bigoted, chauvinist, ignorant, and hilarious… (what you expect from a normal kiwiblog thread…). Here are some ‘highlights’:

Jack5 (1430) Says:
Tour guide to Wellington visitors in 2020:
“And so visitors, looking at these buildings, you can see how Wellington gave rise to the new architectural trend or school of New Zealand — the Tepaparazzi.”

noskire (226) Says:
Who are the architects?
New Zealand architectural firm, Warren and Mahoney are the architects of the Supreme Court building. Warren and Mahoney have been practicing for half a century.
Maybe it’s time they stopped practicing and looked for another job.

Doug (126) Says:
The building has been designed in accordance with sustainable design policies and with low energy use in mind.
At least the greens will be happy, we have disposed of six months worth of scrap metal.

noskire (226) Says:
Guantanomo Bay? http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/guantanamo.jpg

kiwireader (42) Says:
Stop worrying readers, they have simply forgot to take the scaffolding off. I’m sure what’s underneath will be a spectacular tribute to the architect…
http://www.freefoto.com/images/13/44/13_44_58—Scaffolding_web.jpg

vibenna (133) Says:
This was the original brief: “People are always complaining about lacklustre government architecture, even saying that the Beehive is the worst building in Wellington. I want you to design something that will prove them wrong.”

John Ansell (455) Says:
Much as we’d all love to trumpet another worldbeating Kiwi design effort, sadly we must face the fact that our new monument to the Clark government is only the second ugliest public building on the planet: http://johnansell.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/new-supreme-court-not-worlds-ugliest/
Locally it’s a worthy rival for Te Aro Park, the Beehive and Te Papa.

tvb (655) Says:
People should suspend their judgements until the scaffolding is removed.

Peter (198) Says:
I like it.

Poliwatch (144) Says:
Is there any truth to the rumour that the archittects have applied to the Court for name suppression?

Fletch (785) Says:
New Zealand seems to have this curse in designing, well, anything….

If you are bold enough to venture where no sane person should tread: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/01/hideous.html

From the street, it looks like a jungle-engulfed Mayan temple. Inside, the main court chamber is housed within a soaring silver beech-clad cone, capped by glass to admit the light of the sun or the moon. It seems well-suited to the ritual disembowelment of the off-spring of the judges’ near neighbours, the fastest legislators in the west.

We are indebted to the architects for the explanation that the exterior cladding and the interior cone are inspired by the pohutukawa. It would have been difficult to make that link. It is also a relief to know that the tangled [recycled] bronze tendrils shrouding the building have been designed to be bird-proof and wind-proof. Both will be safe from entrapment.

This 21st century judicial landmark squats like a metallic cane toad alongside the charming, old High Court building that was constructed in 1880, closed in 1992 and neglected for years. Restoration of the old building cost about as much as the construction of the new neighbor that hangs from its side like a giant lean-to. It is almost impossible to understand why it could not have been adapted and sympathetically expanded to serve as the Supreme Court. Apparently, its category “A” historic places rating means its bench cannot be altered to accommodate the panel of five judges where three used to sit, and its jury box and prisoner dock cannot be removed. We are left to wonder why laws or regulations like this can’t be changed when so many others can be annulled or amended as quickly as they were passed in the first place.”