Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Turbinhuset September 2014 04.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Turbinhuset September 2014 04.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2014 at 13:49:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Historic turbine house in Västerås, Sweden. This small hydro power built 1891 plant is probably one of the most important buildings in the history of Västerås. In the neighboring town of Arboga was an electric company who was looking for opportunities to expand. To get the company to move to Västerås the Västerås municipality put up with land, capital, and electric power. Västerås Municipality built the turbine house and and rented it out to the company. In 1891 the company moved and changed its name to ASEA (today the ABB Group and soon grew into a multinational empire and Västerås grew into the fifth largest city in Sweden. ASEA rented the building until 1902. (when Sweden had already started to build huge hydroelectric plant in northern Sweden, of course, with technology from ASEA). The building is now a museum, located in the very center between the castle and the City Hall. I really like the early autumn light and the beautiful colors here, the composition is also chosen to include only the older buildings.- Created, uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Support -- ArildV (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Too much in shade. I'd like to see more of the water on the right and less of the grassy slope (I appreciate this may no be practical without being in the water). Btw, why is the roof so flat and the eaves stick out so far? It looks like someone has taken a taller building and squashed it. -- Colin (talk) 12:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment I understand your point Colin although I personally think that the tree shadow on the facade is beautiful. Regarding the architecture; the architect is unknown. The house has been described as a stylish mixture of Gothic and Neo-classical styles. The municipality wanted a representative building of course, located next to the historic medieval castle. A local national romantic architect interested in history (but not necessarily very knowledgeable) maybe?--ArildV (talk) 12:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support the foliage at top left is more disturbing than the shadow IMO; beautiful indeed. -- Christian Ferrer Talk 18:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colin; the shade is very distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support -- Jiel (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, ArildV, but the shadow kills it for me too. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support we can't have light without shadows, main parts of the objects are not in shadow but are shown in good lighting conditions and the parts which are in shadows are clearly visible and not disturbing. The shadow-yelling is getting me s.th. on my nerves. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose pity, a shadow image. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
