problems with large scale projects in Ireland

Postby Plug » Tue Dec 16, 2003 9:21 pm

Oops, sorry, bit of cross posting there.
Most buildings, in my opinion, should look better at night, unfortunately it's very easy to get sloppy, replacing bulbs of one colour temperature with those of another, and generally not paying any attention to the lighting design, if any exists.
Banging up a clatter of sodium floods is the easy way out, and generally will look like it, as well as contributing greatly to increased levels of light pollution. Sorry if it seems like a rant, it's just everywhere I go seems to to be doing it better than here, which, frankly, saddens me, and annoys me in equal proportions. Especially when you think of how good some of these builings could look.
Currently I live in Kilcullen, and enjoy very dark skies!
Plug
Member
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2003 2:23 pm
Location: Kildare

Postby GrahamH » Tue Dec 16, 2003 9:22 pm

Sodium lights should be banned form this country! White light is so much better, especially lighting Portland Stone buildings. It's used right across Europe - sadly very little here, presumably it's more expensive.

Stormont is a very ugly building alright.
Still, its got a Central Bank-type brutish charm to it also! And those imperialist 30s lamposts leading up it's avenue and around the building are fantastic. Don't like the uplighters on the columns though - they've got a yellowish tinge to them.

I was watching a prog on Sunday about Spain, and the streets of Madrid at night were like daytime - its pavements flooded with white light, and I just compared it with dingy grotty orangey Dublin. There's no contest.

And poor old College Geen, the CC are literally reling on the deflected light from the Bank of Ireland to illuminate the space!
GrahamH
Old Master
 
Posts: 4590
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 11:24 am
Location: Ireland

Postby garethace » Tue Dec 16, 2003 9:25 pm

don't go there Plug, just don't go there please.

I mean Bolton Street college prides itself on 'Technology' at the expense of visual aesthetics. Learning about technology while 'becoming' an architect.

And how technology and design are related. As you begin to learn anything about architecture you will understand how much of a problem this is with architecture.

where to start/end talking technology and aesthetics.

I feel you have to make a really good stab at both individually, and basically worry about how they integrate 'on-the-fly' or in the application of what you know.

This approach of integrating things like technology, eg. lighting technology, with design, serves only one not-so-useful purpose. Basically to dilute and confuse design even more.

Beyond the hall door was a nice programme on TV, because you were talking about design, but happened to deal with the lighting as part of the design at the same time.

Zaha Hadid in her renderings has dealt with the issue of 'the building in the nightime'. It is very easy to pick out new buildings were lighting at night works externally. They are very few.

So in terms of lighting, think about space. Does the lighting come from the floor, the upper or lower wall, a ceiling unit, a sunken ceiling unit or some kind of standing unit. Understand how spatially this choice and/or combination of lighting treatments works.

In short, I feel that computer visualisation rendering and free-hand studies for your lightscape or MAX rendering is a useful area of study.

http://www.cgarchitect.com

is one web site you should have in your favs.
garethace
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 9:01 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Postby Plug » Wed Dec 17, 2003 2:05 am

I'm not entirely sure you get where I'm coming from.
I'm not trying to learn about architecture, I'm just trying to use my imagination and expertise to make it look better, and am wondering why architects I have come accross seem to feel that,tho' they patently have no idea about how different light sources effect the internal and external appearance of a building, insist on designing the lighting themselves.
As far as 3Ds Max goes, it has little or no relation to the practicalities of lighting design, other than giving an artists impression. I'm not that up on it, but as far as I'm aware it cannot calculate the lux levels, isolines or glare factors that are an integral part of a succesful lighting design.
I'm on your side, I just want to make what you do look better!
Plug
Member
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2003 2:23 pm
Location: Kildare

Postby garethace » Wed Dec 17, 2003 5:50 pm

Right then, switch quickly onto this thread to discuss it further:

http://www.archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?threadid=2579

The problem is, that as soon as your 'announce' yourself as an architect as knowing very much too detailed about anything, you leave yourself entirely open to assault - that you are not really behaving as an architect anymore, but as some other kind of technician or expert in a small field.

You see what I mean?

You will see what I have written on that other thread.
garethace
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 9:01 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Previous

Return to Ireland