New Urbanism.

New Urbanism.

Postby garethace » Sat Jan 24, 2004 8:16 pm

Four Corners growth spurs city to shape its direction

City Approves Largest New Urbanist Development

Top national planner says Durango's "epic plan" would be a smart-growth "benchmark."


http://www.denverpost.com/cda/article/print/0,1674,36%257E33%257E1909288,00.html
garethace
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 9:01 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Postby PVC King » Mon Jan 26, 2004 8:41 pm

It looks interesting,

Better planned than anything thats ever been done here. The hospital should if nothing else provide the nucleus for development. I heard a lot of people saying they bought investments in Tallaght 'because the apartments were beside a hospital'

Reckon existing house prices will adjust a little all the same.
PVC King
 

Postby garethace » Mon Jan 26, 2004 9:08 pm

Imagine living someplace like America though, where everyplace is only as old as Tallaght? Reading the article I was struck very much by the way, they profiled the incomes of the residents, and how the city or town was only founded in the 1920s! At least Tallaght may have been a farm land or village or something long before 1920. Talking about anchor projects;

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-casino25jan25,1,3760846.story?coll=la-headlines-california

America is a strange place where you have the juxtaposition of ancient tribes of Indians and brand new mass scale development.

Hoping to transform the city into a vast entertainment district, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians is seeking permission to turn a square-mile portion of the downtown core into a multibillion-dollar complex featuring high-rises, shopping malls, restaurants, a theme park and a second casino.


what we need here in Dublin is people like the 'Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians'.

I wonder will they being doing something like this for Tallaght and LUAS someday soon?

http://policy.rutgers.edu/vtc/tod/transitvillages.htm

I think Tallaght might become a bit like Galway or LImerick in future - a relocation habitat.

http://www.expansionmanagement.com/smo/newsviewer/default.asp?cmd=articledetail&articleid=15964

In America, the traditional place for industry was in the north and the southern states were poor in comparison. Nowadays places like Atlanta (Olympics fame) are becoming attractive for company HQ relocation. Parts of Ireland has been a bit like that for a few years now.

Notice the 'more details' bit down at the end, where each city or area, has a web site, a bit like the Corporation/council web sites here, detailing exactly what the area has to offer in terms of services, strategic qualities etc, etc.
garethace
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 9:01 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Postby garethace » Mon Jan 26, 2004 9:23 pm

null
garethace
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 9:01 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Postby PVC King » Tue Jan 27, 2004 3:28 pm

It would appear that Atlanta, has acheived quite a distibution of industrial sectors and services.

The distribution centre doesn't seem to exist here with the exception of the Geodis/IBM project. Which I have had personal experience of, not a good experience either.

The New Jersey development model looks well thought out as a result of the multi-disciplinary/agency approach employed.

Quote "The Transit Village Initiative is a program that seeks to revitalize and grow selected communities with transit as an anchor."

In spatial terms "The Transit Village Initiative fits into the larger smart growth agenda in New Jersey because it helps to promote the growth of businesses and residential population around existing (or planned, in one case) transportation infrastructure investments."

Sandyford you just can't beat such visionary planning, all it needs is an airport
PVC King
 

Postby garethace » Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:03 pm

Along with the Cathedrals thread,I am beginning to see now, that New Urbanism takes in many, many concerns and points of view in its approach to urbanism. I suppose that is why a new urbanism theory is necessary, the old one obviously was too naive about the reality of modern cities.

I might have had a tendency to pigeon hole theories like New Urbanism - but the more I learn about it, in discussions like this, the wider and more useful its definition seems to be becoming.

I mean, thinking about that convention centre thing again, the transit infrastructure and how people are likely to arrive at such venues, I think this particular site to do with Calatrava and 'transit hubs' is a good discussion point. I mean, what exactly does our Calatrava thing do?

Nice site that too in general, good features.
garethace
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 9:01 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Postby PVC King » Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:38 pm

Amsterdam is in my opinion proof that new urbanism is very much alive.

Schipol is always a pleasure as a transit airport and moves more cargo than Heathrow with half the number of passengers.

The real obstruction to quality urban form emerging here is the country's inability to plan strategically.

The inability to resist the temptation to build major traffic generators at important road intersections.

The result being the carbased society derived from our urban sprawl. Work Sandyford and live in Rathcoole seems to be about the height of our vision. :confused:
PVC King
 

Postby garethace » Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:42 pm

Cement Factory Roundabout, Raheen Roundabout, Red Cow Roundabout, Walkinstown roundabout ... worth a thread on its own, to list all the horror stories that are roundabouts these days.

The result being the carbased society derived from our urban sprawl. Work Sandyford and live in Rathcoole seems to be about the height of our vision.


Work in IBM Blandardstown and live in Ballsbridge,... hmmm, yeah that is tough for a buddy of mine. Still these places are not that great a distance apart from one another. The further you get out of Dublin though, the more stretched that commuting distance has become for lots of young people, who decide to drive hundreds of miles each day. We are a very strange race, no doubts about that. I hope the party lasts.

One fine day, though I imagine we will have to really pay the piper for not searching and encouraging smarter, denser and more economical models of development. I think it is great to have IBM in Blancardstown, it is nice to know it is there at all providing some work, but that is just stage one of what should be a much larger plan I guess.

Nice article
garethace
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 9:01 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Postby PVC King » Tue Jan 27, 2004 10:12 pm

Excellent article,

I really think that we need to think fundamentaly about how we view this city as a region. I agree that the real problems of the future are the Carlows and Kingscourts.

I think DCC understand new urban but that like everything else developers will develop where the greatest profits are to be made. In reality that is Tullamore vs Townsend St.

In Ireland everyone is obsessed with house prices, while little is known about urban land markets.

That is in my opinion the root problem, and what compounds the problem are the LA's such as DLRCC and SDCC in particular who will grant permission for Sandyfords and ParkWests years before the transit is in place.

This leads to a situation that when roads are eventually put into place, they start life afflicted by gridlock.

I welcome all the IBM investments in Ireland, they are an excellent employer but this State has served them poorly. It is the yellowpack policies on infrastructure that greatly endanger this and other 'fast food strategy' IT industries.
PVC King
 

Postby garethace » Tue Jan 27, 2004 10:26 pm

Well, hence why I constantly moan and groan about the 'yellow pack' approach to information technology training and infrastructure in our own little humble profession here of Architecture. I guess I am just more attuned to that at the moment, and for a while now, than I have been to the reality facing this country in terms of transit infrastructure.

I think you need to think of the whole entire picture of information technology infrastructure - how qualified people, and what people you use to meet this need - and how information technology in turn could be crucial in achieving and implementing so many of the visions you have described.

I loath, with a passion this approach of the 'VIZ architect'. Some kind of a monstrousity created out of AutoDesk PR brochures and bad advertising campaigns on the back covers of Architects' Journal publications. I think, not only does this undermine real people, with real contributions to make in these areas of computing design tools - but also the Architects themselves, who are already emburdened by so much weight of problems to deal with, than worrying about Radiosity and Ray Tracing packages too.

We, as a profession, are going to do a whole lot of wheel spinning here for the forseeable future. What amazed me is the upcoming generations of Bolton Street/UCD/Queens computer savy graduates cannot see beyond the marketing slogans either. I try to keep very much abreast of developments in the American Architectural profession, where they build/design environments and projects on a much larger scale, much more frequently than we do here in this very small island.

My buddy wda over at CGA, described Ireland as being 'like a Milwaukee'. Dunno what that means, but I intend to find out some time. :)
garethace
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 9:01 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Postby PVC King » Tue Jan 27, 2004 11:30 pm

I agree,

There was a business strategy professor from UCD interviewed recently, and bemoaned the fact that most BCOMM undergraduates would write reams and reams in exams basically explaining what the buzz words meant, as opposed to adopting a theorom based approach of constructing a model displaying how a change in one component would affect the entire.

Sadly it is little different in specific sectors here I fear, I think that the exterior of buildings should be the last area of design to be examined. However many software packages lead you directly to the facade and work back.

It is not much different with development patterns here, we often see the shiny plans without calculating the effects of the completed buildings.

It has cost us dearly,
PVC King
 

Postby garethace » Wed Jan 28, 2004 5:43 pm

Straping things together, wrapping it all up.


1) The openings as an event, light as an element of architecture - even in a small building designed by an architect - you rarely see a good architect who makes a name designing houses and other small buildings, reaching for a standard collection of windows to plaster on an elevation, and position/use them in a conventional manner.

This needs to be studied by all young architects - elevations, don't just have funny fenestration and shapes of openings for the fun of it - when you walk into those buildings, which are well designed, you see when you are inside the building, very quickly why openings are where they are, why they are that size or shape and how light is manipulated by them in the interior space.

2) There are some experiences of buildings here in Ireland, which are well designed and incorporate the idea of time. I like to walk from the old part of the National Gallery of Ireland and exit out onto Nassau Street side. I like to walk from Nassau Street through Trinity out to College Green. I like to walk through the Powerscourt centre, the IFC, curved Street and Meeting house square. It is even nice to walk from the back entrance of wood quay out through the front entrance.

So when you are 'trying to conceive' of something in three dimensions in a computer model - the time dimension, is something which you are aware of consciously. Even a small structure - is normally much larger than a single human form, so that it implies as we move around/through/above/under a structure - that contributes to the experience, as well as the point 1) above in relation to enclosure.

3) Open public space - inner city, inner suburban, outer suburban and landscape. It is not enough to think of the experience of space from the point of view of one individual moving through both time and space. On must accept the idea of 'crowds' navigating, negotiating the human designed environment all around us. Places like UCD, Trinity and many streets in Dublin are places where you can sense, the idea of open space becoming a kind of room or institution, which many people use.

See my points about Medieval Total War and walking cities etc, etc.

Now,

I think, the underlying variable in all of these points is about relating to architecture in some physical, real, space and time experience. The only difference is the scale at which this happens. Without the exercise of learning to perceive space, without these 'hooks' as I would describe them into reality - the whole point of computer design software is ultimately lost.

The great thing about the 3 points above, is that you can study, learn and devote portions of your time to all the above without actually needing a computer at all. But a pencil and sketchbook would be handy. If AutoDesk were to pay me, I would re-write their manuals to accompany these softwares for architects. In my tutorials, the potential user of the software, would not sit in front of a screen for months, until most of the above conditions of learning and awareness were met.

The learning of how to click the buttons, recognises commands, icons etc, etc, etc is only a 'tack-on' the very end of the above process. Potential software users, would be made to 'lift their asses' from in front of the computer system. Unfortunately, VIZ-ualisation and computer software courses currently available to architects in this regard, are most usually run by some 'god awful representative of the engineering profession', or someone who works for AutoDesk. Making them effectively useless to architects, and excluding anyone except the youngest geeks from thriving.

You can be damned sure, the course in computers for Architects, IS NOT tied carefully into any of the above 3 points. Using software without learning to see, to begin with is futile. But hundreds of young undergrads and grads have to no choice, than to take this very poor approach to learning advanced design software. You cannot polish a turd - but unfortunately, that is something that computer software is more frequently being used for these days. In particularly, by the youngest, brightest and more energetic members of the architectural profession, who should be learning to explore the rich reality around them. Than going square-eyed in front of the latest VIZ upgrade interface.

What worries me nowadays, is that any young architect in practice who wishes to 'visualise' something runs the risk of being reported to the office boss, "For doing 3D" on office hours. I.e. That only outsourcing of 3D is allowed - a whole rich repetoire of skills, perception and dedication, once associated with the architectural profession, is becoming more associated with third party rendering service providers.

Which of course, is wonderful for Architects, who,

1) don't possess any visualisation or drawing skills themselves.

2) don't care to try and acquire those skills.

3) don't like those drawing, sketching, visual methods/skills.

An area, which interests me very much, is the notion of architects, using freehand sketching - develop the technique of 'providing the roughs' to ultimately make good computer visuals to the professional VIZ-ualist, who owns the expensive kit, the license, the training etc. That what the architect could provide in 'rough format' via pencil and paper, could become the foundation for what the VIZ-ualist will ultimately produce.

Rather than this approach, of asking the VIZ-ualist to 'do something' and truncating the relationship there. That sickens me, quite frankly. If you look at Hollywood, where most of the CG is done - the director has his/her own personal 'sketch artist', who does these 'story boards' which are sent straight to the 'Animation and Light Studios' or whatever, and the end result rarely lchanges that much from the rough 3D sketch visual.

I must post some better links to show this some time I get a chance.
garethace
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 9:01 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Postby FIN » Wed Jan 28, 2004 6:24 pm

in my college computer skills were secondry. there was a big emphasis on sketching and were always told that an architect can't design on a computer hence now i have to sketch everything before i can even draw it in 2d. u are right however that in office work it's mainly concerned on 2d work with all the big 3d stuff going out to some nerd. we only get to do small colour renderings and if lucky and on our own time do a 3d of some projects.
FIN
Senior Member
 
Posts: 826
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2001 12:00 am
Location: dublin

Postby garethace » Wed Jan 28, 2004 6:38 pm

I compiled the above post specifically for people like yourself to think about. Note the Point No. 1) above.

You refered to your attraction of seeing 'the building in context' before now. Well, I hope if you look into Ching, perhaps play around with VIZ or similar software, and choose a couple of well designed public buildings in your area - you might begin to see the design opportunities which exist, when just dealing with the building itself. There are many, and CHing does a great job of highlighting them all.

I mean, look at the buildings, important public buildings you now, designed in the modern style by a good architect. Look at them from the outside - you will always think, "Now why are all the openings different? Why are the openings funny proportions, shapes and in strange places?"

Like for instance, with a window that turns a corner. Or a long narrow strip of window,which rises from the floor to the height of your knee, and provides a clean wall surface above that, to mount stuff on the wall.

Try it, it is really fun and makes you think, the next time you see an elevation drawing in the office, at why you draw your openings, the way you do.

Sketch book essential when visiting said, well-designed modern public building to record thoughts about how the architect thought about openings, natural light illumination and views out.

I love very small windows too - just a view as you pass etc. Doors surrounded by glass walls - kind of a contradication - but modernism, does all of those things - keep your eyes open. THere are design opportunities at 1:100 scale - but because that traditionally has been the submission requirement scale in colleges - that scale of designing can become very 'dead and liveless' to students.

Re-invigorate your appetite and creativity for designing small things or parts of things, at large scales, using the technique I have just described.

Sitting down in a space, should the openings be designed in relation to that height? SInce you may be sitting down most of the time.

etc,

Remember there is probably more thought put into a few square metres portion of a whole building, by good architects, than in an entire building designed by a poor architect, no architect or spec developer often.

In fact, I would go so far as to say, that Richard Meier and other architect use small building projects, or house design projects to test details and materials, which they will replicate as details on huge buildings. I often think, that a small Meier house, is just like a chunk of a larger Meier institutional structure, that got misplaced somewhere in the middle of a landscape.

A place with loads, and loads and loads of these things, is the National Gallery extension in Nassau Street. In particular the little box, which acts like a porch at the front. It is like a very nice small building in itself - and acts as an intermediary zone between the huge street like place inside the Gallery, and Nassau Street, a threshold if you will.
garethace
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 9:01 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Postby garethace » Wed Jan 28, 2004 6:50 pm

Good painter.

http://www.archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2688

Integrating not windows, if you don't have windows, but even paintings into interior spaces is a worthwhile activity.
garethace
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 9:01 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Postby garethace » Thu Jan 29, 2004 9:45 pm


2) There are some experiences of buildings here in Ireland, which are well designed and incorporate the idea of time. I like to walk from the old part of the National Gallery of Ireland and exit out onto Nassau Street side. I like to walk from Nassau Street through Trinity out to College Green. I like to walk through the Powerscourt centre, the IFC, curved Street and Meeting house square. It is even nice to walk from the back entrance of wood quay out through the front entrance.

So when you are 'trying to conceive' of something in three dimensions in a computer model - the time dimension, is something which you are aware of consciously. Even a small structure - is normally much larger than a single human form, so that it implies as we move around/through/above/under a structure - that contributes to the experience, as well as the point 1) above in relation to enclosure.



Just something else,

On the large scale, at 1:500 scale people relate to their environment every bit as much as they do as at the 1:50 scale. Take a large urban OS sheet at 1:1000 scale - a young, fit, healthy person can easily walk around that map in reality. This ability to move around, also applies to the vertical dimension, or for that matter, the combination of vertical and horizontal movement.

See the Steven Holl scheme for Berlin Library, or any of Holl's work. Which do incorporate a vast amount of different movement vectors in all dimensions. What upsets me, is often people speak about the 'designs of Steven Holl' without considering obvious facets of those designs. You cannot begin to understand Holl's Berlin Library building project, without accepting the notion that people move a lot in all dimensions.

Otherwise, if you don't view the design in this way - it becomes just another crazy architectural graphic. The Cranbrook extension scheme by Holl is another example of a design where movement vectors of people are central. The quite similar Iowa Art Gallery by Meier, or his Getty centre are similar. We often under estimate or even neglect that movement coefficient as spatial designers. Ed Bacon in his book deals almost exclusively with that notion.

The second visual on this page here, sort of says this idea well, for a computer visual.

http://www.cgarchitect.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000085
garethace
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 9:01 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Postby garethace » Thu Jan 29, 2004 10:56 pm

1) The openings as an event, light as an element of architecture - even in a small building designed by an architect - you rarely see a good architect who makes a name designing houses and other small buildings, reaching for a standard collection of windows to plaster on an elevation, and position/use them in a conventional manner.

This needs to be studied by all young architects - elevations, don't just have funny fenestration and shapes of openings for the fun of it - when you walk into those buildings, which are well designed, you see when you are inside the building, very quickly why openings are where they are, why they are that size or shape and how light is manipulated by them in the interior space.


Just an imagine to back up that notion.

http://www.cgarchitect.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=next_topic;f=4;t=000101;go=newer

Not an very daring design I know, but still. It is still all to do with the notion of wearing our environment as an extension of ourselves - it is just the scale changes, from 1:50 scale where natural light is important and size, shape, position of openings. To 1:500 where things like movement and time are very important.
garethace
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 9:01 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Postby garethace » Fri Jan 30, 2004 7:39 pm

garethace
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 9:01 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Postby garethace » Fri Jan 30, 2004 10:12 pm

Sustainability. :)

suburbia
garethace
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 9:01 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Postby garethace » Sun Feb 01, 2004 3:59 pm

Those who hope that suburbia is finally growing up and starting to behave itself often cite this much-quoted line: “Edge cities mean that density is back,” taken from Joel Garreau’s 1991 book Edge City: Life on the New Frontier. Many smart growth proponents who call for higher-density, mixed-use suburbs are especially invested in the idea that maturing edge cities represent a potentially promising future. The reality, however, is that sprawl is back—or, more accurately, that it never went away.


Good paper on edgeless cities

Shocking stuff today, on news about Islam religious gatherings to throw stones at 'pillars of evil'. Some really awesome footage of 'crowds of 2 million pedestrians'. Who says, people power isn't awesome when it is on that scale.

It is rare to see this nowadays though, given that things like Medieval Warfare died a death in WWI. Before that huge formations of armies would regularly march together like some gigantic beast.

One good example of that here in Dublin, is the North Circular Road - designed for the large numbers of 'dragoons, calavry, infantry formations' to quickly access various different parts of the city, from their barrack areas around the Phoenix Park.
garethace
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 9:01 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Postby PVC King » Sun Feb 01, 2004 4:52 pm

That is so true about both Circular roads. very efficient system for a Landing on the North Wall or Dunlaoire as all the bases were within 400 metres of each circular road.

On one of the transport planning papers I did in College I devised a proposal to make both circular roads (nth&Sth) QBCs linking at the new Macken St bridge.

This would have facilitated someone working in Clondalkin the opportunity to leave a bus at Kilmainham and board a direct bus to either phibsboro or Mount St bridge. It also would have cut the time required by buses in the city centre dramatically.

That is the major problem we have in this city is that we cannot get away from a radial mindset. With a vague secondary consideration to where the airport is.

We view the city as two units i.e D1 and D2 (with a little D7 thrown into D1 and a little D4 thrown into D2) In Stark contrast London uses the much clearer EC1 or SW2 area designation and people there understand it very well.

I think that unless planners begin to understand how to contextualise the huge numbers of people that move around every working day; it will only deteriorate further. Although I doubt stampedes will occur
simply billions lost in productivity
PVC King
 

Postby PVC King » Sun Feb 01, 2004 4:52 pm

That is so true about both Circular roads. very efficient system for a Landing on the North Wall or Dunlaoire as all the bases were within 400 metres of each circular road.

On one of the transport planning papers I did in College I devised a proposal to make both circular roads (nth&Sth) QBCs linking at the new Macken St bridge.

This would have facilitated someone working in Clondalkin the opportunity to leave a bus at Kilmainham and board a direct bus to either phibsboro or Mount St bridge. It also would have cut the time required by buses in the city centre dramatically.

That is the major problem we have in this city is that we cannot get away from a radial mindset. With a vague secondary consideration to where the airport is.

We view the city as two units i.e D1 and D2 (with a little D7 thrown into D1 and a little D4 thrown into D2) In Stark contrast London uses the much clearer EC1 or SW2 area designation and people there understand it very well.

I think that unless planners begin to understand how to contextualise the huge numbers of people that move around every working day; it will only deteriorate further. Although I doubt stampedes will occur
simply billions lost in productivity
PVC King
 

Postby garethace » Sun Feb 01, 2004 4:58 pm

Another point worth making, is about the 'band of concerned aesthetic police' that boards like Archiseek and articles by Frank tend to facilitate.

This thread proves me point

As if the designer/engineer in any of these cases could have done much to address the larger problem of how urban space/environments and factory zones are laid out. They aren't ugly buildings, they are perhaps better qualified as low density forms of development.
garethace
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 9:01 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Postby PVC King » Sun Feb 01, 2004 5:11 pm

Thats a pretty good fruit market, I have been in a few identical interiors over the years. The exterior as pretty bland but then again logistics architecture tends to be as functionality dominates.

It is right that we have aesthetic police in urban centres, but particular uses such as wholesale fruitmarkets cannot compete in a 'bid rent' situation. Base line offices 40 psf residential 25psf industrial 12 max psf.

The fyffes building between the corpo mkt and Chuch St is a perfect example of latent site value. However the city can support a covent garden type market that is a mix between veg for topend restaurants/public (snobs) and cafes.

The trick with large scale distribution centres is to site them close to the airtport and entrance to the port tunnel. Where they have a minimal effect on other land user groups. :)
PVC King
 

Postby garethace » Sun Feb 01, 2004 6:15 pm

Take that whole area around the fruit/veg markets - what do you have, an area that shuts down everynight - the old Smithfield, Arran Quay upper/lower, Broadstone and the old N. King St. Church street. Some pretty dead areas in an inner city I think anyone will agree.

I mean, gradually over a long period, I guess people just stopped walking anywhere near/around that fruit/veg market area and it and its surroundings became dilappidated. I would argue the same of Moore St. Contrary to popular culture - Moore Street makes pedestrian avoid that area completely - the dirt, stink, noise, mess and hassle of going anywhere near there is just too off-putting. Result, total disuse and dilapidation of the surrounding area - Parnell St, O'Connell St, Illac centre etc. Camden St, same - street is a mess and the presence of that market created a small pocket where noone really went if they could help it. Thomas St market and surrounding market streets - similar - an area of too-quiet, dead sort of closed down shops and dodgy pubs after trading hours.

I don't care how much colour markets have, I don't care how much 'street activity' selling bulk loads of toilet rolls generates - you have to look at other cities like Barcelona and french/english cities where the markets were somewhat better integrated and tidied up. The markets in Dublin despite all their RTE celebrity are stinking holes.

I mean, those two or three flower sellling places on Grafton Street make me sick - they deliberately shove you into a space about 2 feet wide, covering the entrances to two useful pedestrian side streets from Grafton street, just so they can sell their stinking ould flowers to fat-cat housewifes. They should be fecked off the street and allow the streets off Grafton to flow and function to relieve pedestrian congestion. It is a disgrace. You will notice those streets off Grafton St, have never really developed, as a result of flower sellers blocking it up.

You talk about pedestrian movement and transit, we have to stop being overly naive about street sellers in this city and basically stop them taking over pedestrian routes, just so they can turn over a profit - without paying a cent in rent. They have been overly sentimentalised in popular culture in Dublin - pulling out this molley malone nostalgia thing. I think part of Baggot St has this problem too.

I think that unless planners begin to understand how to contextualise the huge numbers of people that move around every working day; it will only deteriorate further. Although I doubt stampedes will occur
simply billions lost in productivity


I mean, the purpose of pedestrian ways or traffic is that - to accomodate efficient and enjoyable, if possible, motion of human bodies without the need for an internal combustion engine involves - obescity etc, etc. Not so that every lunch going office suit in Dublin, has to trip over f*** flower pots every lunch hour of their lifes. I think it would be very possible to use computer simulation to study the effect of those unscrupulous, dis-graceful flower re-sellers on Grafton st. Leave blocking off Streets to the Gardai people.

We as architects have been very naive too, in not integrating the subject of human bodily movement into the curriculums in architectural colleges. People like Le Corbusier, Holl, Koolhaas have totally built their designs around the needs of human beings for movment on foot. The street traders of Dublin city are not as naive, and if any city is an example of naivity towards street traders, it is Dublin. How long does it take one to get from one end of O'Connell St to the other? Given the amount of rubbish and flower stands you have to negotiate? I mean, O'Connell St, should be a clean slate from top to bottom - I fear the new 'monument' spire is just yet another example of 'this cluttering mentality' the is integrated into much of Dublin's ideas about space, and its use pedestrian by pedestrians.

I constantly reference the millenium wing of the National Gallery, it is for all intents and purpose like a stepped streets with various levels, but no god damn street traders with their pots of flower choking up all the ped movement - No, doubt given half a chance you might find some trader in their blocking most of the width of the atrium and yelling 'flowers for sale'.
garethace
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 9:01 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Next

Return to Ireland