So roll on the 50:1 size models it would be very interesting looking at the Atrium in Block four being filled. [/B]
Is that in the Heuston development?
Well around early to mid 2002, I decided one thing - that I needed to develop some kind of independent ground of my own, upon which to base my ideas and attempts at designing. Only this week I have done a couple of job interviews, and the results have been predictable - 'oh, if we had a technician, we could do this, we could do that'. Young inexperienced or experienced Technicians seem to always be seen as 'enablers' by the profession of architecture. Therefore, it is very hard for a young technician to paint him/herself in a very bad light - since, right off the bat, they seem to have this very positive glowing light or aura surrounding their being.
On the other hand, you put a young architect next to this, and they always appear more like 'more bad, and very unnecessary dead weight in a 'system' which should be well oiled and highly progressive'. That is, built around enabling professionals rather than people who don't enable - but rather, cause resistance. Now, when you get to experienced architects, that changes more - the experienced architect on a project is rather like a bill gates is in MicroSoft. Or saying, Apple Computer Corp. without Steve Jobs is not actually Apple Computers anymore. You often hear about the 'direction and focus' that a famous experienced architect brought to a specific project. Almost like they were the Film directors that get interviewed for movie shows.
I don't think that the education system for young architects - with its very wide subject approach - helps one much either. I would really like one day, to go for an interview, and have that same 'appeal' to a prospective employer as a young architectural technician seems to have today. That is why since 2002, I have worked very consistently towards developing the basic foundation, from which to build a strong independent 'enabling, designer function' as a young architect - so that, some prospective employer would view me as a positive addition to the 'team'. I don't think this point is actually appreciated by educational staff in our present architectural education institutions.
I quote the example of Ching's book very frequently, because literally between those covers, is the opportunity for the young prospective architectural designer, to take his/her first steps towards a positive and concrete future as a professional. You mentioned the technique of getting down really low to view drawings or models - I have practiced over the recent past, the notion of seeing, the little tiny people walking around the page! As daft as this may sound, it is still a vast improvement on any other method I have been lumped with down through the years.
On the subject of walking around - It might be a nice idea to start from SCR/Clanbrassil Street junction some day and walk towards Harcourt Street. Interestingly, you pass out two important religious buildings, which have a very strong impact on the spaces they dominate over. I.e. the public street called SCR or Harrington St, or whatever. Then you approach the junction with Camden St. You will notice looming up in the skyline a couple of new large, commerical glass landmarks. It is an interesting experience to partake in, during a nice sunny morning, comparing two old religious buildings of excellent quality and detailing with new commercial landmarks. It just is a good example of landmarks and streets I think. At this scale, you have the sense of the community or a large collective group of people - not just the individual - learning to associate with their environment, by having significant public landmarks to measure progress on foot through space/time.
This is why I tend to argue that space is four dimensional really. As you cannot explain the above phenomena using only 3 dimensions. I mean, if an architect designing a large master plan or public housing competition etc, doesn't look at space from these points of view - what are
these lines and graphics they persist on drawing on the sheet? Are young architects really only dead weight? Excluding of course, the management potential in the job of being an architect later on in the career - I mean, just in the purely design functionality aspect of the young/older architect. Is the design contribution they make completely airy-fairy? Or something rather much more concrete like I have tried to establish for my own utility?
A building in Dublin, just built - the National Gallery of Ireland extension. Well, it is just a great pity that Dublin/Ireland didn't have buildings like that - like other European cities have had. I mean, so that young prospective architects growing up could establish a relationship with good architecture from the get-go. That ones appreciation and love of something that good could grow with his/her maturity as a spatial designer. I would blame that same, lack of access to really good architecture, as one of the real limiting factors for young Irish architects. No amount of libraries full of magazines change substitute for something real.
To be perfectly honest with you, even if we did have several really good pieces of architecture here - would our approach to architecture education change sufficiently to achieve any benefit? I mean, would we develop awareness in our spatial environment from a young age? I have my doubts, given that we have for so long, done something else.