Gehry for Smithfield

Oh yes, I can just see it now, something magnificent and irregular to offset the plaza!

I wish!

I agree with e. We should commission more foreign architects to build here. Would’nt it be a good thing if one were to walk any street and one say say ‘Oh there’s a Gehry’ there’s a Calatrava, there’s a Foster, etc….Now that would’nt be a bad thing for the city would it,in all honesty. Sure who was the last reknowned architect to have worked here….Lutyens probably!

Really what it seems you are all saying by suggesting that foreign architects work here is that architecuture should be on the top of the agenda when it comes to the design of buildings. When big name architects are invited to work here it is on the basis that their added design value will justify the often higher fees associated with hiring them. If expectations were higher from the public at large right down to the people buying the one bed apartmetns then developers and the more everyday type client would not be able to treat architecture as an optional extra.
Architects in Ireland can deliver buildings on a par with those elsewhere in the world what we need is the demand for them at home.

The last renowned architect to work here….

Ian Ritchie … now if they only let him build it.

Attitudes have to change including those to planning.

I resent Finn Harps being brought into this argument. Being premier divison you have a whole division of teams below them to pinpoint as being sub-standard.

But with the gaffer Gavin Dykes turning his back on mediocre international stars like Avidu & Nesovic (failing to give 100% but have so much potential), and opting for home grown talent like Kevin McHugh (who has grabbed this oppurtunity and produced some sterling performances)I think the parallels between this discussion, and soccer on these islands has been cleverly pointed out by Greg F

PS Avidu is from a Kosovon background and Nesovic from a Serbia. For some reason they never struck up the right relationship

Well I think that if we had a few more pieces of signature architecture by the ‘Big Guns’ here and there it would add greatly to the city of Dublin (or elsewhere throughout the country) and would be a great stimulus for budding new Irish architects too, would it not. I don’t wish to run down Irish architects but since independance the output and quality has been very questionable. When things become a bit stagnant a catalyst is needed now and again to awaken those deep in slumber (whether they be architects or the general public) After all did’nt Picasso have as already said, Paris, a jewel of a city as a backdrop to stimulate his mind to produce sublime work. Somehow I think that if we have complete blanket approaches of doing things the ‘our way’ of mass house estates, shoddy appartments and run of the mill offices blocks,it will not encourage new minds to blossom but rather stunt them as can already be seen. A bit of artistic foreign influence to dilute ideas can be good.

Much as I distrust the idea of ‘signature’ architecture I think that in discussing the issue a very interesting question has been raised, namely why are the ‘big guns’ so desirable in an Irish context.

I’m afraid that my own opinion is that the majority of Irish Architects are ‘hacks’ basically clients men, bought and paid for. I see any number of contentious, poorly designed, and downright bad schemes emanating from very well known Irish Practises.

There is a very obvious lack of will on the part of the Irish Architectural profession to produce the very best architecture possible. As an Architect myself I am convinced that the level of mediocrity in the Irish profession is the greatest problem facing tthe profession in this country.

All too often I hear my contemporaries in practise in Dublin whinging on about An Taisce, the planning system, developers, ‘locals, objectors etc and almost no criticism of the generally lousy standard of architecture in this country which by and large has contributed to the distrust of the profession among these bodies.

Yes Gehry Foster, Liebskind etc – whether you like their work or not are driven by he need to produce the very best architecture that they are capable of indeed one of the cogent features of this type of architect is the constant development of ideas technologies form and design emaniting from their offices.

Likewise if you look, for example to the UK you will find, particularly in London, that the standard of design and more particularly – realisation – is incredibly high among the general profession.

Never mind the big names, most of the ‘nobodies’ over there knock our profession into a cocked hat in terms of ability and drive. EG: Richard Murphy, the McLachlans, Eva Jiricna, Aldington & Craig, Walter Menteth and a thousand others.

Frankly this is the real problem. Irish Architects are generally poor in terms of their commitment to anything other than the clients wallet. For that reason alone I would be more than happy to see big name architecture on Smithfield, anything but the dreadful rubbish proposed by Horan Keoghan Ryan and Simon J Kelly and Partners.

Personally I’d settle for the McLachlans or Richard Murphy, never mind poor old Gehry or superman Foster.

(Really enjoyed that rant)

JK

Cant agree with you there JL, you will find that ‘on average’ UK architects are more design oriented than there contemporaries here in Ireland. I think this is because of the large number of high quality architecture schools in the UK compared with Irelands 2 exercises in mediocrity.

I think that it is difficult to define what is a ‘good building’ to a ‘man on the street’.
One approach that could be taken is that anything that is beautiful is good. What is beutiful to the man on the street? Perhaps it is sometimes a matter of detail?

E.g. ‘classical’ type buildings have always been popular with the average man. Could this be because there is a lot to see when you stand there and look at it – e.g. fluted colums (corinthian etc,) quoins, details within the frieze and so on.

These buildings are ‘interesting’ because from a distance you can make out the different shapes/ outine of the building. Closer up.. there is useally the detailing to keep the eye busy.

Another point to make is that a person shouldn’t have to understand a building, and what it represents, to appreciate it.
It should just look pleasing to the eye.

This is a criticsm of much of the modernist architecture of the past.
I have been led to think, that Le Courbusier and his clan believed that their buildings represented a departure from the excesses of the past – i.e. Paladian mansions etc. and all of their decoration (displays of wealth).

His idea is that everybody is equel and buildings should be simple, and should be for everyone and represent no-one etc. etc.

Somebody like Courbusier may have gotten away with it but many others couldn’t pull it off.

The result… crap, boring looking buildings that looked awfull (and it comes down to looks) and that no one could understand why they were built (never mind the ideoligies behind them).

From a distance their shape may have been some interest but, close up.. there was nothing else to see.

Another example of the man on the street not ‘understanding’ a building – The over-flowery descriptions given by architects for their buildings. I saw one such example accompaning a previous winner of an Riai award (on their web site) that made me want to smack the computer screen!

In summary, any building should have some kind of detail to it, whether it be by mix of colour, shapes, textures and so on, that will be of interest to the eye and keep it occupied.

My humble opinion!