Carlisle Pier – the Aftermath.

Original discussion:

https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2675

IMages and voting:

https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?s=&postid=20359#post20359

A great post, which I think needs to be reiterated here on the board.

The Carlisle Pier competition is a DEVELOPMENT competition as opposed to a purely architectural one. The winning scheme will have to be financially viable while giving an income stream to the harbour authority as well as keeping the public happy – I exclude Richard Boyd Barrett and his mates from ‘the public’ as they wont be happy unless a shrine to marxist ideology is placed on the pier.

Here are a few issues worthy of debate above and beyond the aesthetic ping-pong that this board loves indulging in…

1.
the SOM scheme appears to be twice as dense as the others. Do the supporters of this scheme want to write a blank cheque to the developers? We might get a funky rooftop walkway but it looks like the developers get about 300 apartments which would likely retail for half a mil each – you do the math…

2.
has anyone noticed that the Liebeskind scheme extends way beyond the development ‘red line’ and is nearly twice as wide as the other schemes? Remember, the reason for the baths debacle was as a result of the winning scheme ignoring the site boundary hence allowing the losing shemes to threaten legal actions. Also, is it a coincidence that this is the only scheme without a contractor on board? Landmarks are great except when you have to pay for them (Scottish Parliament for eg) and the harbour company need to be really really sure that the scheme can be built for the budget proposed. Finally, can anyone see a ‘diaspora museum’ attracting sufficient numbers to be self financing? Again the harbour company want a viable cultural attraction, not an albatross around their necks.

3.
The STW scheme is indeed boring but you can bet your last euro that its eminently ‘buildable’. The development mix seems appropriate also.

4.
The HP scheme also has a sensible development mix and is a more attractive building than the STW scheme although i think the design needs some more development. I like the permeability of the scheme – its the only one that allows the pier to remain a pier.

just to re-iterate, the Liebeskind and SOM schemes (and to a lesser extent HP’s design) will no doubt appeal visually to the people visiting the exhibition but he decision is not going to be based principally on design. The current public consultation is potentially cosmetic to a large extent as the assessors will be making a decision based on commercial considerations in the main. If Im right its a straight decision between the STW and HP schemes and if all other things are equal the HP design will win out cos its more attractive.

The real world is a harsh place…..

As does this one, I think. I am not taking away from the outstanding quality of posting from Diaspora, Phil and others in the original discussion thread – but I think these posts really do focus more on the reality now, going ahead with some scheme, which will just get picked out.

I just wonder how many €100,00 a year young single CxO, computer software programmers working in Sandyford and rich divorcee wifes will just line up to get a piece of harbour side living on Carlisle pier. I mean, just put yourself in the shoes of an Estate Auctioneer right now, advertising and showing those apartments in the STW scheme. Are you just going to turn that market away at your shop entrance? 🙂

Has anyone else been to the exhibition?
I went along to view the entries on Saturday and have a few comments:

1. The so called cultural component of each entry is nearly farcical!! diaspora museum, centre for irish culture and rehousing the maritime museum. In my opinion none of these would attract significant numbers into the developments leaving the private offices and hotel to the money paying customers! (just as the developers would want!!)

2. The scale of the STW and HP entries is far too large and would only serve to split the seafront, destroying the view out over the bay for most of dunlaoghaire.

3. The amount of public spaces in each was dissapointing, the Liebeskind and SOM have integrated good usable spaces into their designs and linked them back to Morans park across Queens Road, ideal for (small) concerts etc.

4. the STW entry was as as innovative as any five story box down the IFSC! time to think outside the box lads!! On this basis I would disagree that some of the entries do not reflect the style of the area. Dunlaoughaire hasnt got any predominant style through it – its a mish mash of bad planning and unimaginative architecture!

Has anyone else visited the exhibition and seen the full presentations? BTW the foreign entries had far superior presentations and models, which may sway the public opinion.

This article deals with the ‘Bilbao cause and effect’. It is very important to distinguish between these two.

The unveiling of Frank Gehry’s design for the Art Gallery of Ontario last week in Toronto provoked a rash of feature stories on the “Bilbao effect.” Mr. Gehry stunned the world with his sculptured dream of a museum in Spain seven years ago, and drew enormous attention and resources to the place as a consequence. Was this latest unveiling in Toronto just another knock-off in the attention-grabbing game of third-rank cities hanging their hopes on a Hail Mary pass called splashy architecture thrown by international design gurus?

This ‘Bilbao effect’ was argued for
by Diaspora here:

With this competition it must be remembered that the design competition forms only one part of a comprehensive urban renewal strategy. The vision behind the Dunlaoirghe stategy was to use the Southern French model based upon seafront development. An attempt to harness the leisure potential of the sea as catalyst for ancilliary development.

In this context I think both Liebskind and Skidmore have designed very good submissions. As they are both cutting edge modern while keeping an overall maritime theme. The setting is traditional maritime and to design anything less striking would fail to give the building a landmark status.

As opposed to the ‘Bilbao Cause.’

We should be talking about the “Bilbao Cause” much more than the Bilbao Effect. We should be talking about architecture itself, as an aspiration and experience, as a human art, and leave external “effects” to a distinctly secondary level.

This post of my own, might put the big named entries into some kind of perspective too. The big names aren’t as stupid as Pragmatist or Ocean33 would like to make out either – they run a very lucrative business out of poaching these design commisions all over the globe and I am sure have done just as many calculations as STW have done their viability sums too.

The ‘big named’ designer is a card played by all of these practices and has won them work all over the world. The likes of Calatrava, Gehry, Koolhaas, Meier, Kahn, Le Corbusier…. super star architectural reputations. Like in Formula One racing, you have the BMWs, the Ferraris and McClaren. The Jordans and other mid field racers and the Minardis too down at the bottom no doubt.

what I think, is that the likes of Gehry, Libeskind, Koolhaas and other ‘big named architects’ having created a very recogniseable form of expression – have basically had to go and trawl about the globe looking for nice old urban settings into which to place there designed objects.

I.e. That the big named architects really do subsist upon that nice prime corner site, on a grand old river, in an historic old urban context, somewhere in Europe or elsewhere, to really become the most fitting ‘mantlepiece’ for one of their cool looking hand made presentation models. We as cities around Europe and elsewhere have facilitated these architects with very nice ‘mature sites’ to build these objects on. You will find a lot less going in the opposite direction, (Europe to America) except perhaps Zaha Hadid attempting to build in Cinncinati city centre or something.

Which is really a ‘second prize’ for someone who is quite a good architect, but has to travel around the ‘hinterlands’ and remote outposts of the architectural world in search of things/places to build. Not discounting that Cinncinati were glad to get a profiled public figure such as Hadid to build in their city – I compare the situation in modern architecture at the moment, to when ‘gladiators’ were banned in Rome – in the film after that same name.

Architects like Zaha Hadid in that sense have become the ‘Russel Crowe Maximus’ characters of the empire – striped of their former ranks and busy fighting scraps in the remote colonies of civilisation just to stay alive, without a fitting stage for their talents. I am thinking here in terms of the Cardiff competition etc, etc, etc. If that had been built, would the world of architecture now be a very different place?

I must highlight this post by Diaspora. Because it does contain a very basic and fundamental truth about the architectural design competition process in general. And also is a fitting rebuff to Pragmatist’s argument for pragmatism and at least one positive by-product of the ‘Bilbao effect’ over ruthless tooth and nail commercially driven architecture and speculation. It was the last post on this page.

For the sake of DunLaoire it is lucky that it is only on their website and that the competition process intervened to take it off the agenda.

It is a pathetic design i.e. The 1999 design,

all of the current finalist’s designs have significant merit.

I think it proves the benefits of architectural competitions as the finer points of each design can be examined much more thoroughly once direct comparibles exist.

It also proves that all the consortia to this process rejected the 1999 design.

This is a worthwhile point made by Diaspora too:

The major mistakes that Dunlaoighre made over the past decade has been that DLRCC did not provide sufficient commercial space in the heart of Dunlaoire to provide a viable employment cluster.

The granting of permission for apartments at Salthill and the former harbour market site were critical errors. Both of these sites should have been zoned office and thus provided both a rates base and employment to support local businesses. In the absence of this Sandyford which is not well served by public transport has fullfilled this role. I would contend very badly.

Command and Conquer.

The Dun Laoghaire Carlisle Pier competition is really a battle between two opposite extremes.

STW and H/P have decided to make their schemes as ‘less show-y’ as possible, in order avoid their weaknesses – comparative lack of designer time and resources, and lever their biggest strength – knowledge of the local scene here in this country, to attract the ‘buildability’ vote. Something like a pin stripe suit.

While SOM and Libeskind have gone all out on the other extreme to try and throw everything at this project, and to sell the ‘Bilbao factor’ to Dun Laoghaire and its folk. Something like a nice ball gown.

For my own mind, I think it would have been nice perhaps, if the foreign entries had alot less ‘WOW’ factor, and our own native offerings a little bit more.

But having said that, both foreign and native entries like two wise and battle hardy generals squaring up against one another, just chose the best sites they possibly could upon which to wage their assaults.

Jesus man, thats seven posts in reply to yourself in 24 hours. Over three and a hlaf thousand words!! How do you do it?

Writing things has never been one of my problems, drawing has never been one of my problems either, except when it came to architectural drawings. 🙁

Doesn’t an architectural thesis demand a bit of scribbling? I dunno, never done one. But text-analysing something this size is probably not bad practice anyhow. Read any thesis reports ever? You should give my above scribbling a chance though and read it through whenever you have a spare evening. Promise you it will be worth the effort.

Originally posted by Diaspora
Brian,

You have discussed the presentations and presentation styles in detail. Which do you think would translate best from presentation to reality?

Right, the Libeskind entry could grow into something really good I think, dunno exactly why – but I sort of trust the guy or something, in ways I don’t just trust any of the others at the moment. The fact, he chose to keep to 1:500 scale was like saying, “look guys, I am flexible.” Whereas the 1:200 SOM entry is definitely coming from the Piano in Amsterdam route.

I think the Amsterdam location of Piano’s project, is vastly different from here, being beside Amsterdam’s grand central station practically. I mean, I went into Amsterdam’s grand central station, while over there, and it wasn’t like walking into Heuston where you see Galway, Cork and Waterford – instead you saw Berlin, Paris, Vienna, Moscow – etc, all from one station in Amsterdam – ya’ know like?

That straight away puts the Dun Laoghaire site, into a different catagory to the Amsterdam one for Piano’s structure. Like the fact, that Dun Laoghaire has a number something bus to take you back into Merrion Square, and a DART which presently doesn’t work at the weekends…. is not quite like Berlin, Paris, Vienna, Moscow etc. 🙂

But to be honest, I don’t even attempt to ask the question which one I prefer, before I have at least two weeks to think about the exhibition, and absorb the pages worth of info contained above, to gain some perspective on this whole thing. I mean, most of what is above, was recorded using a portable pocket PC out in Dun Laoghaire last Sunday. So it has the advantage of being a kind of tangible, on the spot recording of my impressions. Having spoken to many architects and members of the general population while out their too.

The original Carlisle pier message board thread, gave me a different perspective too, which I read after seeing the exhibition, rather than before, and I managed to extract, Pragmatist’s and Ocean33’s posts from it as being very important to think about. Basically the reward for studying this competition at all, is to do away with some of my own naivety in relation to projects on this scale. A process that colleges of architectural should engage much more actively in doing with their students, instead of emphasising the construction document side of it too much altogether. But as you have said, how do you get students chatting about anything even remotely design related – answer, impossible.

I think that both the foreign entries and the native ones, could both be viewed as cynical attempts at drumming up some business in their own ways. Without actually worrying about what would be good for Dun Laoghaire at all. Most of them, just entail developer’s putting forward a bright shiny new PR stunt, at making us all believe that loads more private new apartments for Carlisle Pier will be a good thing. It certainly will, if you are a Sandyford based computer programmer working for MicroSoft on €100k per annum. But I guess, things like that nice new sliver block on Clanbrassil Street, near St. Pat’s by Gerry Cahill does prove how nice a space that new apartments can potential make too.

The most important conclusion, that I made, was that things like Helix etc, should in fact be put on sites like this – that sites like this should actually be ear-marked for major cultural projects like that. Then Frank also makes the point about the Abbey moving to O’Connell St, Carlton site, that big theatres can actually be quite dead inanimate things during most of the time. Frank also mentioned how Roche’s in Henry Street has actually changed that street totally – he actually does have a point.

But Henry Street in Dublin does get the crowds, that SOM renders etc, would make you believe Dun Laoghaire’s new pier development would get – it will not. I do take the point, you have made about, perhaps ten years ago, there would be no competition, things would just be built like Bachelor’s walk etc, etc. I certainly don’t remember any exhibitions for Bachelor’s walk or any of the Quay’s in Dublin re-development. I do remember being at the 1993 Wood Quay completition competition exhibition, but that was only done, because of all the protest marches. I guess Frank’s article on open space has a point – we now have some kind of proper spatial strategies like local area masterplans, like Smithfield, Harp, O’Connell St, rather than 2-dimensional broadstroke zoning plans etc of yesteryear.

I guess we are finally learning in this country to slow down a bit, and relax, think about something rather than just ploughing ahead with concrete blocks, wellington boots and large cranes. Making some very expensive mistakes in the process.

Carlisle Pier and Paddy-come-lately.

I take that point, on board entirely, whichever scheme they might choose is a vast improvement on the old stw POS on the web site. I think Frank Mc is good, because he is the only one who is likely to really measure how much progress we are making in a short period of time. The issue that will not go away ever though, in public’s and architect’s minds alike, is what I know was potentially an even more crucial site to get right, than even Carlisle Pier is. That is the corner site, where they have built that flat shopping, car parking building with gated apartment community on top.

I certainly would have like to have seen what H/P, SOM and Libeskind might have produced if that site had been put up to competition. Not that stw, didn’t do a very business-like piece of architecture on that site – I just worry if the site was ever explored properly at all. In a way, like the second Wood Quay competition, this Carlisle Pier thing is like ‘closing the gate once the horse has bolted’ concellation prize for all the poor smuck Dun Laoghaire natives, who might have liked to have had a say in that other project.

I think DunLaoire will survive the pavillions episode which I’m not down on.

Perhaps have a look at something like Stirling gallery in Stuttgart again? It would have been nice to venture down that road, a little bit for the park site. I think the park and the building they put on it, should have been all brought up to speed together. I mean, as it is you have this totally separate new building ignoring the park altogether beside it.

Same in Wood Quay, STW, had not got a clue how to integrate park open space and pedestrian movement together – a big sunken theatre? Yeah, right. Fine for two sunny days in a year, for for people in offices to look out on for the rest. DLR council should have put the whole park out to a kind of ideas competition or something. If STW win this, they will be calling themselves the fathers of new Dun Laoire. They are already the fathers of Wood Quay, very poor ones at that. If they win Carlisle Pier, the prestige will be so much for them, their heads will surely explode.

On a side note, here is an example of computer generated images being used very inappropriately to make something hideous look good: Architecture and gastric problems:

http://www.cgarchitect.com/gallery/image_spotlight.asp?galleryID=17802

I wonder when will it burst? I am open minded about use of technology in architectural presentation, but sometimes you just have to blow the damn whistle, referee!

Well it is like what I have refered to in many of my posts here: That it starts in education of architects at the youngest level – putting them on the right track. Courses like Geography never seem to have lost track of one crucial truth: that the environment we interact with in our daily lives is a product of nature, or urbanism and human beings – that human beings have the ability and do transform the places where we live in.

Other the other hand, architectural education would have you believe, that an architects primary function is to precide over the physical construction of a building – beyond that his/her duty is not important. I only passed out that ‘pedestrian way’ through the Wood Quay civic offices, which ‘might’ have provided a pedestrian route coming from temple bar along essex street, and I have noticed that Dublin corporation have blocked it and used that pedestrian way as a parking area for their vans! It is like how we provided a predestrian street in Grafton Street, and they have allowed flower sellers to shut off whole exit routes from Grafton Street, by using a combination of Hi-Aces, and flower pots.

This crucial gap, between architects preciding just over the construction of buildings and what happens afterwards, is evident all around the place. You do not have to search very hard. A famous minimalist architect speaking here in Dublin a few years ago, summed it up saying, that he goes to all this trouble of creating a nice stone floor and minimalist space. He says, that the user could just throw a dirty big carpet over that stone floor, and most of the architecture has gone. But that he has to have some faith in his clients, not to do that. We as a profession when designing public space, need to have more faith in our clients who use it, and just hope that they eventually ‘get the picture’ as we might see it. Apart from that, we are powerless I am afraid.

Another thought I had was: the competition for the Bibliotheque in Paris is interesting in the context of this Carlisle pier issue too I think. I mean, the entries by Stirling, Meier are the only ones that I have seen in books, but I would like to visit the scheme they eventually built. Take a good look at that project by Meier, the Paris Canal Plus headquarters, a building which pre-dates the building of the Wood Quay STW building. Where Meier just had the vision and foresight to actually make a brand new urban space, as part of that scheme – he did not just ignore the park he made – the building and park work in harmony together. Meier is an architect who has consistently demonstrated enormous faith in his public, to respect his architecture. The public in turn have normally reciprocated. Perhaps some of our practices here in this country need to show a bit more faith, in the ability of the public to make spaces work.

The Liffey Board walk, would appear to be a right step in that direction I think, and of course they are others. O’Connell St etc. Personally the canal banks here in Dublin, might have deserved some of that attention too. Lastly, another poster in the original Carlisle Pier thread did describe this area of Dun Laoghaire ‘as a s*** hole’ only a couple of years ago, so I commend all the work that has been done cleaning it up – hope it continues.

I cannot end up this speech of mine now though, without damning the hell out of the AAI and their use of what I can only call: Architectural Poetic propaganda. They have sucessfully propagated this myth amongst both themselves, and as tutors in colleges here in Dublin, that in order to create good architecture, that you are in some way ‘a poetic genius’ or something. In so promoting this ‘architectural poetry propaganda’, they have relieved many ordinary decent architects, of striving to make better architecture – since only ‘poets of light and pure space’ can ever hope to achieve that dizzy height of creative ability.

They have kind of monopolised total rights over the appreciation of people like Rem Koolhaas, FOA, Thom Mayne and whatever new guy comes up on the block. I don’t want to dismiss the great work done by the AAI, but this continues to be one of their lasting legacies here in architectural schools – the cult of architectural poetry of light and space. LOL! I just watched a BBC documentary last night where Michael Portillo, a British politician gave one of the most illuminating insights into ‘El Greco’ that I have ever heard. Proving the point, that you don’t need Calvin Klein spectacles, a dodgy hair-do and a copy of SMLXL under your arm to have a ‘good grasp’ of poetry and art.

This is not a particularly fantastic urban space, as they go, but at least it is there, present and accessible. Not like what STW, have done with Wood Quay I think.

http://www.cgarchitect.com/gallery/image_spotlight.asp?galleryID=13547

Even this is alot better than what Wood Quay presently has:

http://www.cgarchitect.com/gallery/image_spotlight.asp?galleryID=12880

ABK are much, much better than STW office park aesthetic in my book. Having done two nice buildings in Trinity, having won a competition in Rathmines which looks great, and this is another image I found in Galway:

http://www.cgarchitect.com/gallery/image_spotlight.asp?galleryID=15336

I am even tempted to think, that this approach could have worked exceptionally well with the Dun Laoghaire park site, and still managed to bring in the park, accomodate apartments etc, etc, etc.

http://www.cgarchitect.com/gallery/image_spotlight.asp?galleryID=16504

I generally loved the ambitiousness of the entries of the Carlisle Pier competition though.

If the Libeskind entry was developed by a number of architects, with different styles perhaps and decent briefs.

Click: I would like to see a real public design as part of the Libeskind overall masterplan. But also, I think the scale of the narrow streets in the H/P scheme was about right too – much narrower than the boulevards suggested by the Libeskind project, making it go well outside the ‘red line’ too.

http://www.cgarchitect.com/gallery/image_spotlight.asp?galleryID=14209

That is a very simple notion about using a pier, but you get the impression that it could be much more enjoyable for the public as an amenity.

The more I think about this competition now, and as I said, one needs to reflect a fair bit on something of this scale and significance – the more I am reminded of good public buildings, where the outdoor spaces, and internal organisation of the cultural exhibition spaces, or whatever, are brought into one. A building I have in mind here, is the Frankfurt one, by Richard Meier, where the park and building have a relationship. I just didn’t see anything in the entries presentations, which had that – apart from maybe the SOM entry. But I still think the image of the Spanish gallery above, could work well out there – as retail or cultural.

Hmmmm,

http://www.boxstudio.com/projects/offices/sld022.htm

Libeskind had something like this at the top of his Dispora museum that could have been scraped to be honest.

http://www.boxstudio.com/projects/offices/sld064.htm

Would it work on Carlisle Pier? Dunno. I guess the opera/theatre brief can be a bit too dead in fairness, especially here in Ireland. Funnyly enough, none of the scheme has long narrow medieval pedestrian proportions of space like these ones:

http://www.boxstudio.com/projects/offices/sld067.htm

I am thinking of schemes by Bernard Tschumi, which sort of established a high degree of public accessibility, like the SOM project does, but without facing the wind and all the elements head on.

Future of Carlisle Pier? 🙂

http://www.richardrush.com/z_Pilothouse_bridge_650.htm

Custom’s house plaza?

There are so many plazas and space down there now, i get confused.

Just something I found about Liffey Board walks:

http://urban.cccb.org/

I guess you could call these kinds of projects, high return projects. I dunno what the Spire could be called though.

Bridges and boardwalks thread.

CITY: Dublin (Ireland)
POPULATION: 1.103.400
DEVELOPER: Dublin City Council – City Architects Division
AUTHORS: McGarry Ni Eanaigh Architects, Architects, Michael McGarry, Slobhán Ní Éanaigh
PARTICIPANTS: Muir Associates
PROJECT BEGUN: 1997
START OF WORK: 1999
END OF WORK: 2000
SURFACE AREA: 1.950 m²
COST: 3.000.000 €
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY: Pierse Contracting

The starting point of the present project was the difficulty of making a central thoroughfare parallel to the river and with heavy traffic compatible with the flow of pedestrians who circulated with serious problems due to the high degree of congestion.

The new boardwalk not only solves the previously unresolved conflict between pedestrians and vehicles but has also generated a completely new urban experience in its riverside setting. From a congested thoroughfare, uncomfortable for pedestrians and indifferent to the river, it has gained a space that not only acts as a transit area, but also as an avenue and terrace-square open to the river. A project with a simple, clear concept and appropriate implementation has obtained a pleasant, versatile space for walking and resting, which has enhanced the city experience to an extraordinary degree.

Instead of simply widening the existing pavements along the avenue parallel to the river, the project opted for hanging a light structure over the water to segregate the circulation of pedestrians from the traffic along the road. And so pedestrians can choose one route or the other, but they have the chance to escape the cars and walk in peace, enjoying a totally new relation with the river.

The formal concept of the new boardwalk fully respects the integrity of the old wall of the quay from which it hangs, heightening its nature as a space won back for people beside the river. The correct sizing of the new projecting boardwalk, the wooden benches all along the old wall, the strategic situation of the small kiosks selling hot drinks and the good fortune of the river facade facing south have made it far more than a mere route; it is a versatile space with facilities that make transit compatible with rest by bringing both to a river that thus acquires observers and enthusiasts. The existence of the extended bench, the different levels and the ramps, the viewpoints and the kiosks, favours the diversity of uses on this new pedestrian way, which has sometimes acted as a setting for events organised right by the river. The good connections with the nearby bridges ensure continuity for the itineraries and is also crucial for their use and function, improving the pedestrian routes of the immediate surroundings.

The structural system adopted emphasises the lightness of the boardwalk without any flashy technology and has made it possible to incorporate the technical installations underneath it in a dialogue with the heaviness of the old stone wall, which has been conserved virtually intact. The use of materials such as wood, apart from having a deep relation with the water, brings out the pleasant character of a new avenue gained with respect and creativity for the city.

The determination to make the pedestrian route and general walking conditions better and more amenable along more than half a kilometre to the old Dublin quays and to take advantage of the enormous visual potential of the river for the quality of the city centre are the starting points of the project.

Maybe a slate tower like building, on the pier?

http://www.cgarchitect.com/gallery/image_spotlight.asp?galleryID=18730

In contrast to the earlier very transparent glass one that I earlier linked. The trouble with the Libeskind scheme or any of the entries, is all the finishes and materials etc are the same.

I am worried the end result could be something very bland.

The biggest problems in DLR right now are far, far away from Dun Laoghaire itself, in a place they helped to create called Sandyford. 🙂 They have gone on such a mad rush to build everything out there, that I am unsurprised how little there is now left to spread around sites like Carlisle Pier, except for ‘young bachelor stud’ porsche driving owner apartments.

Yes, Dun Laoghaire may be a nice place to ‘live’ etc, and Sandyford might be a cool place to work for a high tech company. But it is this zoning and separation of functions into distinct areas, which makes modern cities so terrible I think. Yeah, you might eventually be able to walk up the SOM building in Carlisle Pier, but I would much rather be able to walk around a Sandyford, or someplace, without having to be constantly monitored with security cameras and dudes with uniforms. It is a strange new world we are making for ourselves.

Just found this project over at: http://urban.cccb.org/

Again, I would have to ask the question, what strategic significance does Carlisle Pier have? Or more to the point, what strategic significance could other locations around the capital have some day?

Malmö, Sweden’s third city, has historically been an industrial centre with a lower middle-class population. It now has more immigrants than any other city in Sweden. With the economic decline of the 1980s, when many of its big industries closed down, Malmö, in the south of the country, began a period of large-scale investment in policies aiming at urban regeneration and offering a better quality of life to its citizens. In 1995, a town-planning project aimed to bring about the regional integration of the city and to act as the vehicle of its future growth. The inauguration, in 1997, of a university zone in the city centre, connected to the port and railway station, was the start of a process of urban dynamism and the acquisition of a progressively higher cultural profile. In 2000, the opening of a new bridge connecting the city with Copenhagen represented a new geographic positioning that brought other opportunities for communication and work, notably stimulating the city’s future expectations in the process and meaning that the initiative that had begun in strategic planning would continue.

In 1997, the city acquired seafront land that was mainly in disuse. Artificially recovered from the sea between 1948 and 1987, this land offered the opportunity to imagine a new maritime façade for the city in an area that is crucial for the revitalisation of the city centre and for developing a new role on the regional scale.

Another site I tend to like is this one:

http://www.sasaki.com/

With plenty of schemes all over the globe.

Originally posted by PatO’C
Im a BA student doing a project on the proposals for Carlisle Pier. I found some of your posts very interesting but I was wondering if any of you had any opinions on the use of public space in the proposed developments.

Pat, just read this, it is the opposite to the concept of good exterior, open public space, Stillogan. You can extrapolate from there almost everything that is wrong about attitudes to open public space in this country I think, and begin to define how to improve things at all. I don’t think it is about searching out good open public spaces here in Ireland, as so much, just looking around you everyday and seeing the shere non existence of good open public space, which hasn’t been butchered to death by road planners etc, etc.

The best simple reference on this is Fluid Spaces published by UCD, available at 8 Merrion Sq in Dublin.

One of the best places I know, which explains this and you can experience it physically is Stillorgan centre and junction. It is just off the main Stillorgan dual carriageway and Kilmacud Road Upper comes into the junction, along with a couple of ‘overflows’ from the Stillorglan dual carriageway.

There is a couple of pubs, restaurants, banks, shops, cinema, shopping mall, surface car parking, Omni PLEX and so on. But the place is entirely useless because pedestrian were not anywhere considered in the whole equation. It is ALL 100 car in that case, how to drive your car, get out of it and shop.

It is easy to talk about density and ‘mothers walking’ to shops etc, but, it still doesn’t work when you have a mess of traffic like that. It is one of the few places I know in Dublin city, where the cars literally ‘keep driving’ even though the ‘green man’ is turned on!!!!! and old ladies are tried to cross the road.

It is just so much hassle to get from the Omni PLEX to the cinema, to the shopping mall!!! Across all the lanes and traffic going in all directions.

You see most of the Carlisle schems I think were about actually bringing people by cars onto the pier in terms of arrival. Parking the car, then going to some nice cultural experience, cafe, shopping area, hotel or otherwise. What was nice, was the way in which people could do this, that is, without having to go through the kind of hell that is Stillogan town centre.

http://www.cyburbia.org/forums/showthread.php?t=10965