Talk:Cameron Offices

Untitled section

Umm, why does the list of brutalist buildings on Brutalist architecture list the Cameron offices as demolished? --Martyman-(talk) 05:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that too. i was going to put something up on the article's talk page. I suspect it is because somebody read somewhere that they are due to be demolished and doesn't realise that they haven't been yet. (see the second external link. There is a comment there about it. I didn't realise that they were to be knocked down until I read it and the Brutalist architecture article). Adz 05:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

By early 2008, all but two of the buildings have either been completely demolished (those to the north), or demolition is well under way (those to the south). The two buildings either side of Cameron Avenue are being retained, and have had some cosmetic repair work done at the street-level entrances.: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.52.38 (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"design flaws"?

Is it far to use the phrase "Design Flaws" in this article? What we may consider a flaw in 2006+ wasn't necessarily a flaw in the 1970's. I've been to these buildings, and while they represent a period that has past, fail to see the design approach as "flawed". It may be of interest to some, but John Andrews was awarded a sizable judgment (in the early 1980's?) against an Australian Newspaper magnet that had reported what turned out to be un-defendable claims of "design flaws". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick0289 (talk • contribs)

I've replaced 'flaws' with 'elements'. - 'aspects' or 'characteristics' might have been better words to use. -- Adz|talk 23:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed a lot of puffery to give a more neutral balance. JQ (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)