15 Clerkenwell close SAGA

When it comes to designing, I do tend to lean towards a more contextual styled design? I don't like the idea of following specific styles as I believe that every project is unique and should exhibit those unique qualities. If we followed the same language to design (x) amount of building in (x) places, then the language of the design loses it's uniqueness and will eventually be watered-down and become not so interesting. 

In my opinion, I think that the aesthetics of 15 Clerkenwell close is an acquired taste. The story behind the contextualised design is romantic and might strike a chord to anyone who enjoys poetry and the likes, but to common folk, maybe not so much? (perhaps they just would not care as much) Whilst I'm not too fond on the looks of the building initially, as the romantic story behind the masonry construction begins to sink in, I do think the design is great. Objectively, the architect managed to fulfil his duty, met the requirements, fulfil the budget etc. Already the work has been done well and is successful, to take the whole project down and fix it with brick would be a waste of effort/time/resource and counterintuitive. Aesthetically, I do think that it's a good choice contrasting the surrounding with masonry construction, although I would not have agreed on that initially. I think that the aesthetics of 15 clerkenwell close is something that grows on you, as you walk down a street filled with brick construction, suddenly a refreshing change appears and that would be the appeal for me. 

My thoughts on the saga? Pretty dumb

What difference does it make what stone is used (or how it is treated)? Obviously the looks. But the way the stone was treated and how it was done was definitely an artist's touch. If we look at contemporary art, for me all I see is squiggles and abstract and stuff i don't understand. The same would apply to those who don't study architecture and see 15 Clerkenwell close the same way. The plastered looking (cut pieces) of stone might seem like unfinished work and definitely echoes the rawness of the building, which will definitely put off some people especially if they have OCD. But coming back to the topic of art, it is a form of self expression, the way the stone was applied in this scenario works the same way; it was the architect's self expression and interpretation of how the building should situate within its urban context.

What would I have done (why?) I like the idea of the rawness of the masonry construction, if it were up to me and I did end up following the same route and choose stone as the construction material. I don't think I would arrange it with the flat white pieces, to me it just seems very illogical and definitely out of place. I think it comes off too strong, maybe it might be to do with balancing the surface textures more?