grrrrrrrrr

Postby GregF » Thu Jun 19, 2003 2:36 pm

Here's psychology at work here now .....you don't like the bridge hence you're argument of 'it's not the childrens fault but the designer' .
User avatar
GregF
Old Master
 
Posts: 1610
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2000 1:00 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Postby potlatch » Thu Jun 19, 2003 2:47 pm

There's a level in design at which public responsibility stops. Otherwise, we'll end up with a city with guard rails everywhere, continually reminding us that we're so ignorant that we can't be trusted to look after our own safety. This sort of pattern repeats itself so often in Irish society. Is there nothing we can be proud of without people spoiling it for us? If kids fall into the Liffey, it won't be the State's fault - it'll be theirs.

If Dublin did get, say, Foster's Millennium Bridge, people would probably call for caging so that kids wouldn't walk on the cables.

I agree with StephenC: it's a social issue, not a design issue.

I'm all for public responsibility in architecture but this has gone too far.
potlatch
Member
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2002 7:25 pm
Location: Dublin

Postby delta_jacob » Thu Jun 19, 2003 2:56 pm

i think people are missing the point here... nobody is suggesting that we should lock kids up for being naturally curious/ adventurous. However, it is not the problem of the architect or the corporation if these children decide against common sense to climb the bridge, and they should not be forced to change the design for this reason.

i say let them climb on it if they want....there is no need to do something extreme like change the design to stop them. i see kids climbing on bridge walls everyday on my way home from work, yet i dont see any newspaper articles about that... this story simply emerged beacause it is a high profile, newly opened bridge. people will forget about it soon enough
delta_jacob
Member
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu May 08, 2003 2:08 pm
Location: Dublin

Postby doozer » Thu Jun 19, 2003 2:57 pm

Originally posted by GregF
Here's psychology at work here now .....you don't like the bridge hence you're argument of 'it's not the childrens fault but the designer' .


Actually I drew attention to the fact to emphasise the opposite.
Anyway I could use the same logic for you if you like the design. Its a bit of a nonsensical aurguement.


As for social problem v design problem, this is a fairly big fuck up for it to be the publics fault entirely. And I don't buy it. Like I said, its a grey area but in this instance the man just didn't think the thing out.
doozer
Member
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2001 12:00 am
Location: dublin,ireland

Postby GregF » Thu Jun 19, 2003 3:36 pm

Na..... if there was a major fault with the bridge I'd criticize it.......but there is not.
It is a social problem instead.
Personal prejudices should not get in the way of forming opinions either.
The arch like structures have continously been used in most of Calatrava's bridges around the world....yet one never hears of complaints of people using them as slides. Maybe because there is an element of urban respect that exists in those societies....which we lack somewhat here in Ireland.
We Irish are somewhat new to urban living I suppose when compared to other societies..... and social deprivation too is a factor for this disrespectfullness.......but irresponsible actions by people should not be defended so vehemently on such grounds.
User avatar
GregF
Old Master
 
Posts: 1610
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2000 1:00 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Postby doozer » Thu Jun 19, 2003 3:49 pm

Disrespectful to Calatrava????? WTF?

Anyway since when did design begin and end with whether the thing stands up and looks pretty? You have more of a responsibility than that!

As for not hearing about similar problems with other designs.
It seems in the course of this bridge's contruction there has been alot of stuff brought to light that we didn't know about this designer.

At the end of the day I don't think they should alter the bridge at all. If you get hurt its your own tough luck (put up a sign so the can't get sued or something) but its a failure in urban design and it should be considered a failure for the architect.
doozer
Member
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2001 12:00 am
Location: dublin,ireland

Postby GregF » Thu Jun 19, 2003 4:14 pm

Jesus your're right .....maybe they should have designed it like the boring and miserly Frank Sherwin bridge up the river.
User avatar
GregF
Old Master
 
Posts: 1610
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2000 1:00 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Postby doozer » Thu Jun 19, 2003 4:17 pm

There, you see, I knew you'd come round in the end. Don't you feel better!
doozer
Member
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2001 12:00 am
Location: dublin,ireland

Postby GregF » Thu Jun 19, 2003 4:46 pm

grrrrrrrrrrrrrr...........
User avatar
GregF
Old Master
 
Posts: 1610
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2000 1:00 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Postby sw101 » Thu Jun 19, 2003 7:18 pm

children. stop it.

the point has been made that it seems some people on this forum would like a nanny state where kids are locked up and made sit down, ppl dont drink etc.

what kind of nanny state would it be if every climbable object were to be gaurded against? why should the overriding concept of a design for public space be to make it litiation proof? the first fool to fall of that bridge will make a fortune and then it'll be spoiled for everyone. it should be a sueable offence to sue a person for your own stupidity.

anyone read michael moores "stupid white men"? hes right about this country and others like it outside the u.s. we're going to shit
sw101
 
Posts: 874
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 3:01 pm

Postby ew » Fri Jun 20, 2003 12:36 pm

There was a similar case somewhere outside Dublin earlier in the year. It was a large sculpture that was removed from a town center (or was it modified?) as there was a risk that someone could climb up the indentations on the side of it like steps. Does anyone recall the details? There were a few photos in the papers at the time...
ew
Member
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Dublin

Postby Rory W » Fri Jun 20, 2003 12:56 pm

Since when did we abdicate all responsibility of parenting to an architect? As a child I used to go the Grand Canal locks around by me - if I fell in (25 ft drop) into an empty lock when titting about and died it would have been my own fault, and not the fault of the opw. What is wrong with this country that everything has to be pc and self-effacing. Christ since we have got money in this country we have become a right shower of right-on twats.

If I crashed my car - would I demand that the design of the car was changed - no. We need to grow up and take responsibility for ourselves and our children's actions.
Rory W
Old Master
 
Posts: 1331
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Drogheda & Blackrock

Postby emf » Fri Jun 20, 2003 1:10 pm

All the people complaining on this thread about the behaviour of children must have very short memories. Every child since the dawn of time has a natural desire to climb and explore, (hence the inclusion of climbing frames in childrens playgrounds I suppose). Children (although there are a lot of adults out there too) do not readily see the dangers of their actions. Whatever about calling children, who actually inflict pain on others, gurriers etc I don't its fair to tar a child with the same brush when they suddenly see the mother of all climbing frames suddenly appear across a river near them.
I can make the comment about childrens natural actions because I still remember climbing every tree I could find as a child and looking back on it now am surprised I wasn't killed by some of the falls I experienced!!!
(I don't think they should do anything with the bridge by the way!!!)
emf
Member
 
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2002 4:03 pm
Location: Dublin

Previous

Return to Ireland