Changing Attitudes
- This topic has 11 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 24 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
While visiting Poland, I was struck by the monumental statements that were impressed upon me when visiting some of Warsaw’s Communist Architecture. Rarely does architecture move me to the point of stating that it is possible for a building to inspire unparalleled optimism and confidence – and this actually happened when I visited the Socialist-Realist skyscraper known as the Palace of Culture and Science. Such is the vastness and sheer detail of the structure that its length alone would put the whole Spencer-Dock development in the shade; its detail more ornate than most Cathedrals. Its capacity would easily accomodate most of the office and shopping needs of a Dublin postal-code.
Yet, not unlike our own attitudes to architectural glories of the past, Polish people view with disdain the architecture that was built during the Soviet era. They view such edifices as ugly and decadent – a monstrosity from its colonial past that should be knocked rather than remain.
It is unsettling to recall that many in this country saw the architecture of the old enemy in a similar fashion. In times of nationalistic fervour, we too saw the Georgian streetscapes, the Gothic castles and Palladian mansions as grotesque, unconsciously moreso for who lived in them rather than their historical and architectural merits. While thankfully we live in more enlightened times, the Polish experience highlights again that architecture is more often criticised for who built it rather than its merit.
On a lighter note, I recall that one of the reasons for the rejection of the Spencer Dock skycrapers was their lack of a ‘top’. May I suggest a Stalinist skyscaper-or-two (renowned for their spires) to fit the bill? – An ideal vista on Fitzwilliam Street!
Mmmm……a Moscow State University complex on Spencer Dock………
After our years of architectural ignorance and neglect I’d like to state that we have now have in Ireland an ultra conservative attitude towards modern architecture and particularly height and scale……..(yet historical buildings are still vanishing before our very eyes whilst we are left with only with a facade) Spencer Dock although overly commercial did have to a degree a sense of difference and optimism. Our capital city has an extremely drab skyline if anyone has noticed….(please don’t compare Dublin to Florence). Had Spencer Dock gone ahead (it’s design could have been modified) we would have had a massive transformation in this area (Calatrava’s bridge would’nt have been put in doubt either) and it would have added immensely to a featureless and otherwise suburban sky line. We may now get in this area totally conformist bland and small insignificant shite for all to behold and forget.
I have to agree Dublin does have a rather boring skyline. Did anybody see Top of The Pops with U2 playing their new song on top of the Clarence? The only building that caught the eye was the Central Bank, what does that say about our skyline????
What the DDDA have done on the IFSC extension with its uniform roof heights does not help Dublins boring skyline either, lets hope they don`t do the same on the Gas Works site.
Thank God somebody agrees with me. I saw that U2 stint and I thought the very same. What a mediocre backdrop…….especially when one compares us to Paris, NY, Sydney,etc…. or even London too, or indeed any other British city. We are supposedly in the big league now as a popular city/country and I think we should have some trappings to demonstrate so. The DDDA are bullheadily developing the docks as a visually very boring attraction …..too much attention paid to the oppinions of the few locals and not the greater needs of the city. We will in the future regret it. I work in a company with many foreign nationals and they all seem to think the same……..they are disappointed with the visually meagre trappings of the celtic tiger, the exhorborant rents for accomadation and prices in general, etc….Does everyone remember too our none existant millennium celebrations here?….and how we saw Sydney, Beijing, Jerusalem, Berlin, Rome,Paris, London and when we got to Dublin what did we have…….Joe Dolan live from Killarney or some bloody where. We’ve really got to leave our rural instincts behind and focus on being an urban/city people.Is’nt is embarassing.
Thank God somebody agrees with me. I saw that U2 stint and I thought the very same. What a mediocre backdrop…….especially when one compares us to Paris, NY, Sydney,etc…. or even London too, or indeed any other British city. We are supposedly in the big league now as a popular city/country and I think we should have some trappings to demonstrate so. The DDDA are bullheadily developing the docks as a visually very boring attraction …..too much attention paid to the oppinions of the few locals and not the greater needs of the city. We will in the future regret it. I work in a company with many foreign nationals and they all seem to think the same……..they are disappointed with the visually meagre trappings of the celtic tiger, the exhorborant rents for accomadation and prices in general, etc….Does everyone remember too our none existant millennium celebrations here?….and how we saw Sydney, Beijing, Jerusalem, Berlin, Rome,Paris, London and when we got to Dublin what did we have…….Joe Dolan live from Killarney or some bloody where. We’ve really got to leave our rural instincts behind and focus on being an urban/city people.Is’nt it embarassing.
Please stop comparing Dublin with Europe. Dublin is uniquely small compared to most capital cities, which many visitors find endearing. Its delights lay in the details, and although growing rapidly, a small town atmosphere remains entact. The building boom of the Georgian era attempted to turn Dublin into a great European city (which it was briefly), however, the Act of Union ended this development (and imagine what might have been). Thus, Dublin stagnated, it turned in on itself as power shifted to London, while the Industrial Revolution passed us by. We attempted to modernise with disastrous results in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, as developers and politicians, mostly rural, treated Dublin like Las Vegas. Nevertheless, what has emerged is a city with a history all its own, untouched by war, industry, which, until now, has never had to face the prospect of catching-up with Europe. Now that we have a new-found pride in our city let us celebrate what we have.
Yes, we should be proud of what we have in Dublin today, but i think that in modern times (the past 40 years say), the erection of ”good looking/interesting” buildings has been a bit piecemeal.
There is some good stuff around but, that does not mean people (i mean everybody)should not try to strive for a visually higher quality environment for Dublin.
That also stands for any other town or village etc. in the country, but of course Dublin City, as the capital, should be at the fore-front of good developments and ‘lead by example’.
I couldn’t help but notice myself, walking around the IFSC/docks etc. this summer, that the last couple of buildings (as far as i remember) seemed all too similar. Not just in height, but in bulk aswell i think.
I had thought at the time that at least the last building could (should) have been a bit taller to differentiate itself from its neighbours. Also, i thought when looking at the row of buildings that the last one could have done with a bit of colour (with glazing etc.???) but not, with more of that grey, granite cladding that is nice but has already been used in quite a number of other buildings. It may become a bit too ‘standard’ if people are not too carefull.
My overall impression of the DDDA area was that it seemed quite nice and had a pleasant/vibrant ‘public realm’ full of office workers. There didn’t seem to be much other reason (besides working in a office) for been there and that maybe that is saying something in itself.
Roll on some more ‘mixed uses’? (like some of those proposed for Spencer Dock)
p.s. sorry for deviating from the topic!
“Mixed use as proposed in Spencer Dock”
What mixed use
4.6 million sq fet of offices
2 prison like blocks of apartments at the back
4 shops
1 pub
2 Hotels
1 conference centreHardly a vibrant community with mixed uses, its the same as the other phases of the IFSC only with bigger office space.
Have to agree with the heights issues though.
Admittedly, 4 shops (if that was the no. proposed) is very small as is just one pub but, the fact that there was going to be 2 hotels and a national conference centre aswell as appartments, in the scheme seems quite ‘mixed use’ to me – certainly better than just offices.
Also, was there not some huge amount of appartments proposed, that mayhave added a few thousand people to the area. That on its own seems a significant enough use.I thought there was meant to be a ‘technopole’ element to the development i.e. some sort of teaching/ research labs for Trinity?
If not part of the definitive development, there was also discussion of having a rail station fitted onto the scheme?
Besides the offices, i thought that a conference centre and a few thousand students and appartment dwellers would go a long way towards constituting a ‘mixed-use’ development.
As for the buildings themselves, i thought that they looked too much like an assemblage of identical ‘blocks and rectangles’ looking far too similar. This is a pity as that programme on R.T.E. about Kevin Roche seemed to show some very interesting buildings (i’m thinking particularly of the museum in Chicago? with the roof covered in foliage and the building in New York with the huge, plant filled atrium).
Well the Technopole element has changed location so many time (Spencer Dock, Ringsend, and Pearse Street) that I don’t know whether or not it would be built there.
I think what I meant by lack of mixed use buildings was the lack of cultural things and any ‘draw’ elements to the area. The conference centre and offices would mostly work on a 9-5 Monday to Friday basis, but that would be it. The IFSC 1&2 are so dead and desolate at the weekend and after 6 that you would think you were in an office park in the outer suburbs.
As for the apartments they were very much of the non owner occupier model (ie small and quite unsuitable for anything more than a couple). If they build large apartments (I’m thinking ‘Fraiser’ style here) that people would want to spend actually living in, then something more than a transient population would be developed in the area. Important for sustainable development.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
