Quote:
Originally Posted by ShortNCuddlyAm
What'd I miss??
And to keep on topic (  ) some-one in the Govt or EH thought this monstrosity (although it doesn't look quite so grim in that pic) was worth listing (Grade II: buildings of special architectural or historic interest.):
 |
Ummm, well, I'm not sure a building can qualify as "silly" .... ugly as hell, yes, but silly??
Oh, what you missed was ProfJulie stating that the original poster "owns" the thread (that was the word she used, I believe) that they start, and that it is disrespectful (again, her word) for anyone to post off topic or to post something "silly" in the thread.
So, since I "own" this thread, according to ProfJulie anyway, I decided to put the ownership "rule" to the test. Also, I was curious to see if any countries other than the US had serious organizations (such as the Library of Congress) who had recognized things that were decidedly silly as being of cultural significance.
As for architecture, while I do think much of what came out of the 60s was in really poor taste, I'm just not sure it was "silly" .... I would think of a silly building as maybe being something sort of whimsical .... you know, like a giant dinosaur diner or something like that.