grrrrrrrrr

by **GregF** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 9:20 am

as in aka.... the kid was performing for the camera

by **StephenC** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 9:24 am

I think this is very probable. Hands off our bridge I say....

by **notjim** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 9:45 am

surely it isn't so hard to solve anyway, maybe a few studs to stop sliding and then some of that paint that never quite dries further up. that won't stop drunk people, but then climbing buildings when drunk is part of being alive and 20 and nothing will stop you.

by **Harry** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 9:58 am

"If you visit the bridge when there is no photographer present you are unlikely to see anyone climbing the arch."

I didn't see the article in the paper, but my apartment overlooks the bridge and most evenings you can see people running up the side of the main arch and sliding back down. The only photographers that seem to be around are sightseers and tourists.

It is probably fairly normal for a story to hit the papers in that way, (photographer asking subject to pose) but that does not lessen the validity of the story.

As well as running up and sliding down the main arch, I have also seen people trying to "shimmy" up the "ropes" that support the carriageway from the arch and skateboarders using the seats as slides.

It won't be long until someone decides to go all the way to the top of the arch and falls on some innocent pedestrian.

This is a public order issue. Indeed, there are many places where people can climb to precarious positions (and sometimes they do!), but not that often and they run the risk of getting in trouble with the law.

The Gardai regularly set up speed checkpoints less than a hundred metres away and pay no attention to whatever else is happening around them. It is about time they put a bigger presence in the area and tried to put a stop to this and other anti-social behaviour.

by **doozer** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 10:22 am

So it would seem that Calatrava has landed us with a structure that has not taken into account human usage or its surroundings....................
<insert 'I told you so' comment and smug triumphalism here>

by **Rory W** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 10:50 am

Wrap the arches in white razor wire - that'll learn em

by **GregF** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 11:17 am

What are these people...monkeys or something....Jesus, it's a bridge for god sake ....How many times has one seen a playground installed for 'bored kids' and it ends up vandalized.

by **doozer** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 11:23 am

We design structures for the way people are not the way we wish society to be.
This was an element of the brief that wasn't addressed, and in fairness hardly a surprising one, I'm amazed at the amount of vitriol aimed at kids who are just messing around in the environment in which they live. That's what we want people to do- interact. Its probably the only part of this design that's sparked my interest, but it remains a design issue- not a social one.

by **StephenC** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 11:37 am

Thats the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard! What you are suggesting is that we shouldn't blame kids for 'interacting with their environment' ...even if this interaction involves suspending themselves off a slippery metal girder 20ft over a busy roadway!

The point has been made: when does the designers responsibility to the surroundings and possible uses of his/her design stop. The possible uses of a design could be considered ad infinitum but eventually you have to stop. People should not be climbing this bridge and if they do and they get hurt then tough! Serves them right.

by **GregF** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 11:46 am

We want people to interact.......by scaling
the bridge (ah yea ...like the way they scale the Eiffel Tower).
.....hence you end up with graffitti ridden, litter strewn, vandalized, treeless, no go areas of a city....as Dublin has suffered.
....the amount of vitriol aimed at kids.....Kids? more like little monsters. The makings of tomorrows gurriers.
Responsible parenting is the keyword here......and it should bear no relation to poverty. Poverty of the mind morelike.

....where's the child catcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang!

by **doozer** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 12:03 pm

All I'm saying is that this is an inner city area and that people climb on urban structures all over the world (Its not just Dublin kids and the pointless attacks on their behaviour add nothing to the arguement)- is it imposible that Calatrava could have forseen that this would be an issue. Its seems on the contrary that he provided young people with a challenge.
I'm sorry but that's where we should draw the line for architect's responsibility-
wilful bad and ill- considered design.

Your right - if they fall it does serve them right, I don't disagre, but there are levels of acceptable risk and I don't think this is acceptable from a design point of view.

by **doozer** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 12:05 pm

Originally posted by GregF
We want people to interact.......by scaling
the bridge (ah yea ...like the way they scale the Eiffel Tower).
.....hence you end up with graffitti ridden, litter strewn, vandalized, treeless, no go areas of a city....as Dublin has suffered.
....the amount of vitriol aimed at kids.....Kids? more like little monsters. The makings of tomorrows gurriers.
Responsible parenting is the keyword here......and it should bear no relation to poverty. Poverty of the mind morelike.

....where's the child catcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang!

By the by..tomorrows gurriers.?........nice

...snobbish and upper middle class all in one obnoxious phrase....

(The irony being that the first person to get hurt will probably be a drunk Trinity student!)

by **GregF** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 12:26 pm

Na.......no way snobbish bud......I am of such stock which fully qualifies me to give out about such. No pretensions here.

by **doozer** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 12:28 pm

Originally posted by GregF
Na.......no way snobbish bud......I am of such stock which fully qualifies me to give out about such. No pretensions here.

And there I rest my case.

by **GregF** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 12:30 pm

.........hope you practice what you preach too.

by **doozer** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 12:33 pm

by **potlatch** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 12:42 pm

The problem isn't the bridge. The problem is knackers. London doesn't have a problem with people tightroping across the Milennium Bridge.

by **bluefoam** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 12:47 pm

The idea that children should be sat in a classroom, told not to move or speak for most of the day, repulses me. Kids should be active, learing from their mistakes. If some people had their way (not mentioning certain people on this forum) we would be locked into the nanny state, kids wouldn't play, people wouldn't drink too much etc....

Have you never done something just for fun? Sometimes silly and dangerous things are fun. Man would never have invented planes or climbed Everest if it hadn't been for people disregarding the danger element. People need real life experiences to understand how to interact in society, its no good just telling them its bad to do things.

You are just pi**ed off because you think the pretty bridge will be ruined because of the local kids. Well if the bridge is ruined its due to a design oversight.

Lets call this item no. one on the snag list.

by **GregF** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 12:53 pm

I don't think we really need a psychology lesson, do we......but bridges are for traffic, playgrounds are for children and orchards are for robbing.

by **GregF** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 12:56 pm

.....or is that bridges are for children, traffic are for orchards and playgrounds are for adults.

by **bluefoam** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 1:00 pm

I think some people on this board do need psychology lessons.

by **bluefoam** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 1:01 pm

...Or analysis

by **GregF** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 1:27 pm

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

by **StephenC** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 1:28 pm

This is all getting very personal and hot tempered... but I have to agree with the point that the bridge is not meant to be climbed. If people choose to put their safety at risk by climbing it then it is a social issue not a design issue. And the fact that they are some one little darlings makes no odds - they shouldn't be 'interacting' with the bridge in this way.

Its like that other favourite topic.... Le Spire. The spire can be grafittied.... if people choose they can walk up to it and spray it with paint. But they should not. Its not a design issue if they do, its a social issue as in lack of respect for one's surrounding.

Also hate that inner city/ outer city class crap... a scumbag is a scumbag whether he lives in town or in D4.

by **doozer** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 1:28 pm

Perhaps there's been a bit of a digression, the issue should not be about so- called knackers or whether we should lock children up!! or what the ethics are for architects to even entertain such theories!.
Its no secret that I do not like this bridge but however much we scaremonger and moan the population of inner city Dubiln is no worse than many other capital cities in my experience.
Therefore if a problem like this presents itself almost as soon as the thing is up and open then the responsibility must lie with the design and the designer.
Come on.

grrrrrrrrr

Archiseek.com

About Us