This appeal rejection appears ironic to me, agreeing that it’s a decorative arch but essentially saying it’s not decorative enough. No other buildings in this commercial area have decorative arches, thus making this more unique. Arches on two other sides of the building were accepted through community voting. It may be that this arch is simply too generic, but I thought I’d reach out for feedback.
I do see why this arch would be unique to this building, if there was only 1, but if there already 2 other arches accepted on this specific building would that not make not distinct and possibly not a duplicate?
Im curious if it will be overturned or not.
Hello,
This isn’t art, but architecture. Saying it’s art is misleading, as it’s a part of the building’s architecture, and most likely serves a purpose. There are also similar design elements around this building (a AAA location, which could also be seen as a generic business).
Looking around this building, there does appear to be a picnic area in the back, and that would make for a better Wayspot than this arch. It looks like there are some picnic tables in the area below. Have you considred submitting that?
Architecture is art.
2 Likes
I agree. There is bad architecture and boring architecture, but that doesn’t stop architectural features being classified as art. Any architecture which is designed to have a strong visual presence is certainly artistic.
For this arch, if there are several of them around the building, they do stop being distinct.
These arches have no functional purpose. They only have form, which is explicitly the artistic element. The purpose they serve is artistic.
The whole building has this brick pattern around it in different areas. I think this may have been meant to be an entrance at one point, hence the arch, but now it’s just a part of the building. You can even see how similar the bricks at the back of the building by the picnic area look almost the same as the arch.
I’ve just gone round the building in streetview. There are deliberate echoes of the bricks in the curved arches at points on the main building and at the front, the arches either side of the main entrance merge into the building facade itself. These arches are form and exist purely for aesthetic purposes, not function. There is no intention for these arch structures to ever have been entrances.
If you can find any streetview image that shows anything different, please post it 
Well, I’ll make it easy and post the Street View here:
I happen to find the architectural message quite crude, but that doesn’t change what it is. The bricks in the main building are deliberate echoes of the bricks that comprise the arch structure. They are not ‘left behind’ pieces of brickwork from whatever was there before, but deliberate insertions into the facade.
2 Likes