Architecture (in words)

There is ‘no messiah’ i.e. there will be no recovery, no bounce, no floor. Hope is the worst eneemy of the damned. Get used to de-growth as he said at PLEA. (The future is descent economics or ecomonics piggybacking oil production graphs, i.e downhill from here). Dubai/bahrain/abudabai will come to a standstill in a few months, nobody is buying the awful apartments they are building. Start learning cantonese.

I like his mention of R+D in architecture, with the exception of UCD ERG, Science in Architecture and Arch Technology is largely absent.

I’ve never read the President’s column

See what you’re missing!

@gunter wrote:

See what you’re missing!

€600 plus for my membership each year.

parka, you’re forgetting that you also get a rubber stamp!

@gunter wrote:

parka, you’re forgetting that you also get a rubber stamp!

€48 extra sadly (I only used it once this month) 😡

I hadn’t realized that ‘The Sunday Times’ still did an Architecture piece in the Culture section, but since someone kindly abandoned a copy outside Superquin, I now know that they do.

The subject of Shane O’Toole’s soft focus was the East Wall Community Centre, by O’Donnell + Tuomey.

As usual, there never seems to be anything critical in a critical analysis, just ever more inventive ways to combine words in shameless hagiolatry.

I’m not saying that O’Toole dodges the hard questions and the issue of the roundy windows is addressed with the acknowledgement that ‘. . . these playful perforations . . . (have) given rise to an affectionate and irreverent nickname: the SwissCheese.’

Other passages plucked at random:

‘The gardens, which heighten the relationship of indoor to outdoor space, are something new in ODT’s work.’ Suggestions of a bit of a breakthrough here, windows between the inside and the outside, and the gardens cleverly placed on the outside!

”The planting, dense and dark like a forest floor, is such a luxury.” a gob-smacked quote from Tuomey himself.

‘Unlike most contemporary architects . . . . ODT’s architectural desire is for a sort of everyday ordinariness elevated through the careful marks of its making.’ This is where I’ve been going wrong, I’ve mastered the everyday ordinariness, but I’d forgotten to mark it’s making.

‘Poured-in-place concrete reveals the conditions of the construction site in the finished building, in the same way that locally quarried stones connect a medieval tower-house to it’s surrounding field pattern.’

I’ll read that again:

‘Poured-in-place concrete reveals the conditions of the construction site in the finished building, in the same way that locally quarried stones connect a medieval tower-house to it’s surrounding field pattern.’

Even if we accept this, somewhat tenuous, comparison, Shane goes on to tell us that: ‘ . . PJ Hegarty, the builders, spent three weeks cafefully hand-sanding smooth all of the concrete surfaces.’ ! ! Surely that will have erased the very ‘conditions of the construction site’ that the ‘poured-in-place concrete revealed’, no?

Anyway ”The battle” as Tuomey is reported as saying, ”is between identity and placelessness, between character and the bleak terrain”, and that’s where the article ends, nothing about, why is the concrete tower apparently painted baby blue?

Gushy gushy, the most apologetic piece written in a long time and as for the building, a patchwork of ideas, which in their own right mioght be ok, but you could probably find some building where these emerged before. Also the Norman tower house makes its appearance again, is there an axis between ODT and Tom de Paor, the offspring, revolving around a singular icon of occupation. Is this the higher ground, the equivalent of Le Corbusier’s, elite of artists and intellectuals at the heart of Cite Contemporaine.

Next time you are travelling along the Contarf sea front have a look at the seating selters in conctret with their curved roofs, “round windows” and pale blue/green paint finish. Remarkable sense of deja vu…..

I have pretty much stopped reading any architectural journalism. Particularly in this country. I think it is fair to say that what might be loosely termed an ‘avant garde’ has become the mainstream and the level of acceptable criticism is now limited by the extent to which everyone seems to know everyone else. Practically every piece written now gushes from start to finish, remarking about how the architect has created ‘a sense of place’ or something to that effect.

@shadow wrote:

Gushy gushy, the most apologetic piece written in a long time and as for the building, a patchwork of ideas, which in their own right mioght be ok, but you could probably find some building where these emerged before. Also the Norman tower house makes its appearance again, is there an axis between ODT and Tom de Paor, the offspring, revolving around a singular icon of occupation. Is this the higher ground, the equivalent of Le Corbusier’s, elite of artists and intellectuals at the heart of Cite Contemporaine.

Next time you are travelling along the Contarf sea front have a look at the seating selters in conctret with their curved roofs, “round windows” and pale blue/green paint finish. Remarkable sense of deja vu…..

reminds me of bus shelters prevalent in Holland 15 years ago….

I admire fresco stone work its writing on the wall the chefe is novo mais mais

Here’s a little something …..
http://www.garrymiley.com/2008/11/18/SorryMajorComputerMalfunctionsHadMeOffTheAirHopeThisMakesUpForIt.aspx

The RIAI Journal’s President’s Column is too downbeat this month to get much cheer out of it, but in compensation, there’s one of those gurgling, gushing, reviews on page 34, this time of ‘Alto Vetro’.

The review is by a Professor Hatz, who looks suitably Swedish in her thumbnail photograph.

I think we can see which way this is going.

That’s going to be a relief for anyone who’s put down a deposit.

That’s probably fair enough, but if ‘Alto Vetro’ is ‘a well calibrated trumpet blow’, I want to bring her back next year to pronounce that ‘Monte Vetro’ is a fart in the corner.

For all it’s inventive use of language, what the review doesn’t ask is, why is the ground floor so low and mundane?
and why does the top end with a half hearted set-back?

From what I can see, all the most sucessful tall buildings in history have had a base and a top. The good ones that choose to read as an ‘object’ without a separately defined top depend even more on being lifted off the ground on a plinth or piloti or somthing to make the presentation of the ‘object’ deliberate.

Prof. Hatz does redeem herself somewhat at the end by stating boldly that:

I’m assuming that ‘the pulling down of the Mills’ is a euphemism for the pulling down of anything that contributes to the character of the city.

“From what I can see, all the most sucessful tall buildings in history have had a base and a top. The good ones that choose to read as an ‘object’ without a separately defined top depend even more on being lifted off the ground on a plinth or piloti or somthing to make the presentation of the ‘object’ deliberate.”

That’s a fair point gunter, but in this case I have to disagree, I think the proportions work, the top and bottom are expressed by being repressed, I think it is a subtle take on that expression; It is too small for the base to be overworked. I particularly enjoy the symmetrical stairs to the roof, which to my mind, bear some reference to a crown, possibly even to P.J.s AT&T, but using the elements of the building to do so, rather than an applied decoration.

@gunter wrote:

‘Dublin architects ought to protest vividly…

Protest vividly? Like this?

Also, her Grace Jones comparison makes me think of that great scene in L.A. Story where Steve Martin is standing in a gallery giving a stream-of-consciousness analysis of a painting:

I like the relationships. I mean, each character has his own story. The puppy is a bit too much, but you have to over look things like that in these kinds of paintings. The way he’s holding her, it’s almost… filthy. I mean, he’s about to kiss her and she’s pulling away. The way the leg’s sort of smashed up against her…
Phew… Look how he’s painted the blouse sort of translucent. You can just make out her breasts underneath and it’s sort of touching him about here. It’s really … pretty torrid, don’t you think? Then of course you have the onlookers peeking at them from behind the doorway like they’re all shocked. They wish. Yeah, I must admit, when I see a painting like this, I get emotionally ….. erect.

The painting is a red rectangle.

@gunter wrote:

The RIAI Journal’s President’s Column is too downbeat this month to get much cheer out of it, but in compensation, there’s one of those gurgling, gushing, reviews on page 34, this time of ‘Alto Vetro’.

Mabye he is taking a siesta and will come back in the new year for a Blitzkrieg.
He needs Santa’s little helpers! any way I’m sure its not been an easy time…
But hopefully all the goals of his tenure will be meet, its getting to the time where there is nothing to lose and the whole world to gain. :p I hope he is back in form soon:p

@spoil_sport wrote:

I think the proportions work, the top and bottom are expressed by being repressed, I think it is a subtle take on that expression; It is too small for the base to be overworked. I particularly enjoy the symmetrical stairs to the roof, which to my mind, bear some reference to a crown, possibly even to P.J.s AT&T, but using the elements of the building to do so, rather than an applied decoration.

‘Expressed by being repressed’ . . . . . oh I’m going to use that phrase!

Altro Vetro in the distance from Ringsend Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and from Pearse Street.

On the top, I see where you’re coming from, but while I agree that the symmetrical stairs work as a design device in the distant views, In a sense this feature is every bit as contrived as the AT&Ts broken pediment, which at least is honest in displaying it’s decorative properties. At Altro Verto the configuration of the roof stairs looks like it’s been designed to suggests some kind of fundamental structural hanging system (not unlike Mackintosh did with the superfluous hanging chains in the top floor galleries of the Glasgow school of Art), when in fact they’re just duplicate access stairs to the roof.

Either way, I’ll give you the top, but I can’t agree that the base works. I know it’s a small building, but it’s got the proportions of a very tall building and I think the proportions of the ground floor need to reflect that, and they don’t, they’re far too low.

Anyway it’s only a small point, but I want an architectural review to probe these aspects too, not just gush on about how great the building is.

what does the president have to say for the new year?

http://www.architecturefoundation.ie/2009/01/16/some-dark-thoughts-for-these-bleak-times-by-sean-o-laoire/

What the?????

OK,

What colour were the deckchairs on the Titanic, does anyone know?

“Which brings me to female architects. Beards and pipes are not obvious female accessories though I have encountered a bearded lady or two in my time, and indeed some Danish ladies who smoked pipes with some style.”

Charming ramblings of a senile old man

I think he is in the know and being honest/upbeat…
At least it is interesting to read you take what ever you want out of it…

black and white back in time…
Some previous presidents where ever so formal…
However I was impressed with the Tado inclinations but I still don’t feel they have been translated from Japanese to Irish quite well there is still erring…

It’s a Calatrava is a great quote there is no underground in venice…
I hope we will get a coolboom one day…
whats happening with the government policy on architecture 3 x 3 = 9 only time will tell

@missarchi wrote:

what does the president have to say for the new year?

They appear to have cut off my supply, . . . . may have to look for scraps elsewhere!

Ah! here’s a decent article by Mark Stephens in Self-Build, Extend & Renovate Ireland http://selfbuild.ie entitled ‘Iconic Houses 2: Space and Light’

I haven’t got the patience to read the whole article, but have you noticed how often architects take credit for ‘Space and Light’?

Were dealing with new houses . . . in the countryside! . . . I think the ‘Space and Light’ might have been there before they started!

Maybe clients should bring their own ‘Articles of Agreement’ to the table at the first meeting: First item: I’m giving you a half acre site to work with, please don’t screw up my Space and Light.

The article refers back to Mies Van Der Rohe (subject of an earlier article) and the new concept of Space and Light. Mies, who I love, and Corb, who I love even more, did sell the Modern Movement with the tag line ‘Space and Light’ when all their great buildings are actually about, what architecture has always been about, composition!

Obviously I’m out of my depth here, but pressing on regardless,. . . . not composition in a shallow, two-dimentional, way, but still composition in the conscious invention and arrangement of the elements of a building into a satisfying whole. Everyone knows that the genius of the Modern Movement was in being able to imagine a new aesthetic, free from historical precedents, but the success of every single building still depended on the skill of the individual composition.

Anyway the article goes on about sunken ‘eco’ houses and grass roofs etc. (when you design a house to commune with nature, what stop nature from communing right back?) and it brings up a very useful analogy that a house is basically part cave and part tent. I can live with that, but if we’re going to start developing a new ‘eco’ architecture that gets back to basics like this, we’re going to encounter new aesthetic possibilities, and when we do, we can’t afford to forget the principal of composition. You can have the finest ideology in the world, but if your building looks like a glazed skip, are you not failing the composition test?

The difference between architectural composition and musical composition is that in music, time and taste filters out the unsuccessful efforts which are quickly forgotten leaving the great works and the cheerful jingles to undure. In architecture these filters don’t work, the bad stuff is every bit as likely to endure as the good stuff and when eventually decisions are take to redevelop, the good stuff is just as likely to end up in the skip as the bad.

Still, there’s a lot of good, thought-provoking, stuff out there at the moment, in Leitrim and places like that.

Did anyone read Dermot Boyds lambastation of Calatrava in the most recent AAI magazine?

http://architecturalassociation.ie/pdf/BM18_forWeb.pdf

Now if only he could apply his words to pretencious irish architectural journalism.

@PTB wrote:

Did anyone read Dermot Boyds lambastation of Calatrava in the most recent AAI magazine?

http://architecturalassociation.ie/pdf/BM18_forWeb.pdf

Now if only he could apply his words to pretencious irish architectural journalism.

thanks PTB…. great read…

i love this line…
“The budget for the project is $2.4 billion dollars and it is financed by the Anglo Irish Bank. This is no mean achievement for Garrett Kelleher and he should be congratulated as an Irish developer and businessman.”

🙂

…whilst I was particularly taken with the following comments: “In his introduction, Liam Nesson declared that Santiago Calatrava, the architect of the Chicago Spire, was a ‘true master of his craft’ and ‘a modern day Leonardo da Vinci of architecture’. I do not agree with him nor unfortunately did I believe him for Mr. Neeson is an actor not an architectural critic.”

So, we’ve established that actors are not qualified to comment on architects’ skills (though the matter of whether they’re entitled to express an opinion remains unresolved at the time of writing).

However: “Our comperes were Liam Neeson and Natasha Richardson. Both are accomplished Hollywood stars, and they put on a good performance…”

What’s this? An architect thinking he’s qualified to comment on actors’ skills? Who does Mr Boyd think he is? Michael Scott?*

As for doubting their sincerity, I wonder what he expected? Fancy champagne, canapés, films, fireworks, music… and prosaic descriptions of mech & elec specs? As revelations go, he’s hardly Unmasking The Batman now, is he**? “Hold the front page!! Fancy apartment scheme has a marketing budget!!”

To be fair, when he gets into the content proper, he has some interesting thoughts, but the over-reliance on sarcasm and the superiority of tone only serves to weaken his argument and obscure the worthy content.

Oh, and the plural of ‘storey’ is ‘storeys’. G-zus H.

*This question is possibly answered in his conclusion, where it is suggested that “…architects are to become actors…” under the new paradigm. So that’s the necessary qualification, one can assume.

**I’m using superscript for footnotes, fyi, taking my lead from you-know-who. I hear it gives a veneer of sophistication. Anyway, was my cultural reference sufficiently obscure here? ‘I’m Gonna Unmask The Batman’ was a tune by Chicago bluesman Lacy Gibson. See what I did there? Cute, eh?

gold medal winner from the south pole

It’s all getting very apocalyptic out there.

There’s another call for patriotic action, mixed with a bit of circling of the wagons, in the President’s Column this month.

In the old days, this would have been ‘Claret’ workshops!

Histrionics aside, this is a very welcome call to arms and it can always be followed, later on, with advise for the last one out the door to turn off the low-energy light, if it doesn’t work.

Here’s the full piece:

sorry if I’ve made the print a bit small.

@gunter wrote:

“This is a time when we need your engagement in the formulation of a vision for a new Ireland, by participating in ‘charette’ workshops in your nearest School of Architecture.”

In the old days, this would have been ‘Claret’ workshops!

Hey- at least he’s still using the French, right? He could have just called it – perish the thought – a workshop!

Also, read this sentence carefully:

@gunter wrote:

”There has never been a time in recent history when the insights of architects and allied professions, were required to guide society to a better place.”

In other words: in recent history, architects etc. were an unnecessary indulgence. And that’s when times were relatively good! Hardly an inspiring message from your great leader.

@ctesiphon wrote:

Hey- at least he’s still using the French, right? He could have just called it – perish the thought – a workshop!

From the current (March/April) RIAI Journal:

‘I urge you to participate in a series of ‘Charettes’ . . . . these will be hosted by the Schools/Departments of Architecture throughout the country and will take place before May and in September’.

French you say! not the French for charades, I hope?

From the same issue, here’s a piece of architecture speak to illuminate the darkness:

‘Niall McLaughlin Architects . . . (of the proposed Centre of Contemporary Irish Culture, in Kenmare) . . . . say: ”We have designed the building by discovering a founding narrative for the site and showing how the deeper geological order has allowed a local culture to emerge and how this has, in turn, shaped the wider natural landscape”.

. . . any ideas?

This is my recent favourite

“The house is an exploration of diagonal space within an orthogonal form and the possibilities of integrating environmental concerns at a fundamental level,” says Diarmaid Brophy of FLK

Translation – Its a retangular house with big windows 😉

@gunter wrote:

From the current (March/April) RIAI Journal:
From the same issue, here’s a piece of architecture speak to illuminate the darkness:

‘Niall McLaughlin Architects . . . (of the proposed Centre of Contemporary Irish Culture, in Kenmare) . . . . say: ”We have designed the building by discovering a founding narrative for the site and showing how the deeper geological order has allowed a local culture to emerge and how this has, in turn, shaped the wider natural landscape”.

. . . any ideas?

I could have a guess…

Is it the noughties (i.e. touchy feely organic) equivalent of the programmatic aspect of Functionalism?

I’m reminded of two quotes:

@Robert Maxwell – The Two-way Stretch wrote:

Smart thinking, not fine feeling, was the source of the New. Architects could appeal to an empirical reality as something which required a particular outcome, and that outcome was beyond question.

https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=45276&postcount=5

@Alexander Pope – An Essay on Criticism wrote:

Those RULES of old discover’d, not devis’d,
Are Nature still, but Nature Methodiz’d]http://poetry.eserver.org/essay-on-criticism.html[/url]

Nebulous, enigmatic quotes divorced from context? Where do I apply to be President? 😉

@gunter wrote:

‘Niall McLaughlin Architects . . . (of the proposed Centre of Contemporary Irish Culture, in Kenmare) . . . . say: ”We have designed the building by discovering a founding narrative for the site and showing how the deeper geological order has allowed a local culture to emerge and how this has, in turn, shaped the wider natural landscape”.

. . . any ideas?

What he means is that they have investigated the site’s cultural, historical and geological make-up and found that the physical attributes of the site have affected the development of the local culture and that this local culture has in turn had an affect on the same landscape, this discovery is then used as a narrative framework in which to make design decisions.

The house is an exploration of diagonal space within an orthogonal form and the possibilities of integrating environmental concerns at a fundamental level,” says Diarmaid Brophy of FLK

Translation – Its a retangular house with big windows

Although very much not the fan of FKL I am less a fan of people who feel we should retard ourselves for the sake of ‘clarity’ and the pleasing numbness that the lowest common denominator mistake for understanding

@what? wrote:

What he means is that they have investigated the site’s cultural, historical and geological make-up and found that the physical attributes of the site have affected the development of the local culture and that this local culture has in turn had an affect on the same landscape, this discovery is then used as a narrative framework in which to make design decisions.

. . . and then they went off and designed the same aggrandizing sub-Bilbao arthouse shape-case that they would have designed anyway if the site had been a surface carpark in Blanchardstown?

@what? wrote:

Although very much not the fan of FKL I am less a fan of people who feel we should retard ourselves for the sake of ‘clarity’ and the pleasing numbness that the lowest common denominator mistake for understanding

Perhaps some of us have more to be modest about than others, but attempting to elevate the mystique of a particular creation, which may have little more to it than it’s own ‘pleasing numbness’, only increases the disconnect between architecture and the users of architecture and I don’t see how that can be a good thing.

If architects claim to be among the leaders of society, learning how to communicate ideas without always dipping into outandish jargon and unnecessary French words would be a good place to start, in my opinion.

@what? wrote:

So rather we should attempt to placate the mass ignorance towards architecture that pervades the public of this country with things they find readily understandable and desirable? – i.e. a pre-fab school, a stone-effect neo colonial mansion, a commercial architectural practice using the language of corporate America to communicate the ethos of a hood-winked Cultural Institution.

Frankly you’re twisting the argument – it’s not about the architecture, it’s about how you talk about it

Dressing up building in architecture-speak does no-one favours – neither the architects or the public – but it alienates the public from even trying to understand, and it quickly becomes “i don’t like it”.

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

– it’s not about the architecture, it’s about how you talk about it

Dressing up building in architecture-speak does no-one favours – neither the architects or the public – but it alienates the public from even trying to understand, and it quickly becomes “i don’t like it”.

That’s exactly what I would have said if I’d thought it through.

I shouldn’t have been disparaging about the Kenmare building, it was the cringe-inducing geo-cultural design justification, rather than the actual building, that was raising my hackles and threathening to make me slip into ”I don’t like it” mode.

This is a particular bee in my bonnet – architects’s interaction with the public. Years ago before Archiseek, I used to go to AAI lectures and was basically made feel unwelcome – even though their mission statement was to encourage the public – so I started here. Of course then I was welcome.

@gunter wrote:

If architects claim to be among the leaders of society, learning how to communicate ideas without always dipping into outandish jargon and unnecessary French words would be a good place to start, in my opinion.

Hear hear! Perhaps, it would be best for everyone if they just pinned up the plans and said nothing at all!

Let’s not forget the words of GB Shaw (from The Doctor’s Dilemma)- All professions are conspiracies against the laity.

I fully agree with Paul and gunter- you can describe/explain crap buildings in over-contrived language (bad), and you can describe/explain well-designed buildings in simple language (good).

Sometimes I suspect the relationship is inversely proportional- the more high-falutin’ the language, the worse the building.

Although I’ve also seen good buildings described using ridiculous language- usually to the detriment of the building itself.

Yeah totally agree. We do ourselves no favours using this kind of language. It just reinforces the publics opinions of an arrogant and needless extra cost in a project.

I think it stems from a constant necessity to explain every little move in college. There was a couple of times when I got chewed out of it for saying that ‘it just seemed right’ to explain my decisions. I’m not a fan of post rationalisation.

Good architecture should need no explanation at all, it should work on all levels and be understood subconsciously by its users. To try to explain or justify particular creations in such convoluted language is akin to gilding the lily, which in many cases has the affect of souring the taste.

It does a disservice to the public at large…. they are the ones who inform public opinions, they determine what is popular in music, entertainment and culture at large. Are we now saying that they are too ignorant to determine what is good architecture?

Should architecture be focused to be understood by the client, users and general public… or should it be aimed at impressing the architecture elite?? Is architecture ‘public art’ or is it an indulgence of a fetish????

It’s worth repeating – from http://www.irish-architecture.com/news/2009/000074.html
The building can be situated within this developing tradition by rooting itself in its own situation and expressing something of the concealed history of its landscape. We have designed the building by discovering a founding narrative for the site and showing how the deeper geological order has allowed a local culture to emerge and how this has, in turn, shaped the wider natural landscape. The relationship between topography, climate, economic and social history and the natural order of flora and fauna is a proper study for architecture. We hope that a successful building design will emerge from these considerations. As a result the building can be capable of being read as a microcosm of the whole landscape. This allows the building to mediate between the exhibits displayed within and the broader culture of the region.

Did anyone ever read such twaddle?

Kenmare is in itself a microcosm of “Contemporary Irish Culture” :-

It leads the country for gombeenism in politics, planning and rezoning / town planning.

Like most Irish rural towns it has a growing population but no facilities – no train service, no public bus service (other than one bus a day in summer months, 4 hours to Cork!), no cinema, theatre or public swimming pool.

Its sanitation services cannot cope with the effluent and the place stinks on a summer’s day; there is a water shortage every year (in Kerry, for God’s sake!)

It has new, boring housing estates in various shade of magnolia, some completed and empty, others part-finished and abandoned. Its stock of old buildings is being run down and the few remaining ones invariably sport plastic windows of the worst type.

It has an out-of-town shopping centre with mainly empty retail units. It has no cultural activities or events.

It has several upmarket hotels with the obligatory “Spa”- fat arses being rubbed with roundy stones by candlelight, not even a generation away from the basin in the kitchen and carbolic soap. Most are empty of closed in the off-season.

Hen nights for Cork birds are frequent and a drink culture is dominant. Its restaurants are overpriced and cater for the passing trade, why bother with effort when you are unlikely to see the diners again?

Kenmare has no need for a Centre of Contemporary Irish Culture – it is one. Just put a roof over the town and preserve it the way it is.
K.

nice one KB….

its scary to think that that could also be a description of many moderately sized towns around the country, in the wake of the ‘celtic tiger’s flatulence…..

Many buildings encompass complex and overlapping ideas, which require explanation and or analysis as part of a cultural communication with the aim of progressing the subject.

I would go as far as to say sometimes the ideas encompassed in a building are more important that the building itself.

The quality of the building in the flesh/ and whatever written word may be published about it is a matter for individual and we should not exclude “high falutin’” language because it is sometimes misused or intimidates some people.

God forbid that we approach building in any way other than the readily quantifiable aspects of comprehendible function/ price/ image.

Architecture should aspire to be a cultural act, not the facilitation of client ‘requirements’ and regulatory compliance.

Paul – From the AAI’s website “The Architectural Association of Ireland was founded in 1896 ‘to promote and afford facilities for the study of architecture and the allied sciences and arts, and to provide a medium of friendly communication between members and others interested in the progress of architecture’.”

It is not a publicly orientated organisation and neither should it be, in my opinion. What made you feel unwelcome? The complex content of some of the lectures? I for one am very pro AAI and grateful that there is an organistaion out there that caters for architects intellects above the level of Duncan Stewart. It is the ounly outlet in this country for architecture that has not been dumbed-down for general consumption.

Ctestiphon – Explain LaTourette in a sentence “ it’s a concrete monastery?” is that sufficient to communicate the ideas latent in a piece of architecture so rich?

Kerry Bog – your blatant contradictions need no highlighting, I hold your opinion in high contempt.

Make the monkeys clap.

@what? wrote:

Many buildings encompass complex and overlapping ideas, which require explanation and or analysis as part of a cultural communication with the aim of progressing the subject.

I would go as far as to say sometimes the ideas encompassed in a building are more important that the building itself.

The quality of the building in the flesh/ and whatever written word may be published about it is a matter for individual and we should not exclude “high falutin’” language because it is sometimes misused or intimidates some people.

God forbid that we approach building in any way other than the readily quantifiable aspects of comprehendible function/ price/ image.

Architecture should aspire to be a cultural act, not the facilitation of client ‘requirements’ and regulatory compliance.

Paul – From the AAI’s website “The Architectural Association of Ireland was founded in 1896 ‘to promote and afford facilities for the study of architecture and the allied sciences and arts, and to provide a medium of friendly communication between members and others interested in the progress of architecture’.”

It is not a publicly orientated organisation and neither should it be, in my opinion. What made you feel unwelcome? The complex content of some of the lectures? I for one am very pro AAI and grateful that there is an organistaion out there that caters for architects intellects above the level of Duncan Stewart. It is the ounly outlet in this country for architecture that has not been dumbed-down for general consumption.

Ctestiphon – Explain LaTourette in a sentence “ it’s a concrete monastery?” is that sufficient to communicate the ideas latent in a piece of architecture so rich?

Kerry Bog – your blatant contradictions need no highlighting, I hold your opinion in high contempt.

Make the monkeys clap.

The most successful architecture occurs when there’s a perfect marriage between these aspirations towards art and delight and the pragmatics of construction and function.

I absolutely agree that sometimes the concept behind the building is extremely important but the fact is any of the examples highlighted here are terrible pieces of writing.

The general public are fully capable of understanding any concepts that architects can come up with and it would be a great leap forward for us if they did.

The simple fact of the matter is however that we have failed utterly in our communication.

@what? wrote:

Many buildings encompass complex and overlapping ideas, which require explanation and or analysis as part of a cultural communication with the aim of progressing the subject.

Explain LaTourette in a sentence “ it’s a concrete monastery?” is that sufficient to communicate the ideas latent in a piece of architecture so rich?

La Tourette is a complex concrete powerhouse for monastic contemplation and a formidable sculptural accident in the landscape, of course it’s going to defy any attempt at a one line explanation, but Le Corbusier did give a decent one-liner for Ronchamp:

”Ronchamp . . . was not a matter of pillars but of plastic event . . ruled not by scholarly or academic formulae but free and innumerable”.

two view of La Tourette monastry and one of Ronchamp chapel (from The Le Corbusier Guide)

I get that!

edit: sorry ctestiphon, I think -what?- addressed that question to you!

@gunter wrote:

La Tourette is a complex concrete powerhouse for monastic contemplation and a formidable sculptural accident in the landscape, of course it’s going to defy any attempt at a one line explanation

With the above scentence, you have twofold reinforced my point. I appreciate your support

What ? Twaddle!
@what? wrote:

I would go as far as to say sometimes the ideas encompassed in a building are more important that the building itself.

Fine if you don’t have to live/work in it. Even better if you convince some fool to part with money to fund it and your ego. Ever hear of Earlsfort House?
@what? wrote:

The quality of the building in the flesh/ and whatever written word may be published about it is a matter for individual and we should not exclude “high falutin’” language because it is sometimes misused or intimidates some people.

More poppycock. “High falutin” language is not intimidatory to the average person; it is simply a sign of egocentric and selfish behaviour in the writer. The purpose of language is to communicate. Florid and extravagant prose kills communication, obfuscates the subject and loses the audience.
@what? wrote:

God forbid that we approach building in any way other than the readily quantifiable aspects of comprehendible function/ price/ image.

Ahem….. How does this sit with your statement @what? wrote:

I would go as far as to say sometimes the ideas encompassed in a building are more important that the building itself.

@what? wrote:

Architecture should aspire to be a cultural act, not the facilitation of client ‘requirements’ and regulatory compliance.

Excuse me, but we are the people paying you 11% + and want you to pass comment and give educated advice on our ideas and perceived needs. If looking for the impossible or undesirable, most clients will listen to reasoned cogent argument. Even surgeons have stopped talking down to patients. Black polos experts do not make.
@what? wrote:

What made you feel unwelcome? The complex content of some of the lectures? I for one am very pro AAI and grateful that there is an organistaion out there that caters for architects intellects above the level of Duncan Stewart.

What a snotty, condescending remark. Go talk to some intellectual architects: the ones I know would put manners on your lofty notions. I’m no fan of Duncan, but at least, in his favour, he has done much for bringing your profession and its qualities closer to the consumer. Even if his programs have persuaded only a handful of new-homers to use an architect instead of Bungalow Bliss, it is a handful fewer of blots on the landscape.
@what? wrote:

Ctestiphon – Explain LaTourette in a sentence “ it’s a concrete monastery?” is that sufficient to communicate the ideas latent in a piece of architecture so rich?

Ctestiphon is well able to stand on his own two feet, but I suggest that LaTourette is a syndrome from which you suffer, a tic of spouting your balderdash.
@what? wrote:

Kerry Bog – your blatant contradictions need no highlighting, I hold your opinion in high contempt.

Cannot find my contradictions. As for you holding them in contempt, I’m not worried and would have you sussed out at first meeting. No briefs from me, mate.
Do I detect a grouch with no work, too much time, whinging that the recession is to blame for its lack and unwilling to face up to reality?

K.

One by one…

1. Still fine even if you do have to live in it. Again the prosaic is not always the aim.
2. The purpose of language is to communicate. It is generally not possible to discuss/ communicate complex ideas through simple language other than by allusion or some other diffuse reference.
3. It sits with comfortable ease.
4. 11%+ ??? You don’t sound like the enlightened kind of character that would lavish that fee on a building design.
5. Duncan Stewart personifies the imaginatively arid, culturally bereft attitude commonly held towards architecture in Ireland. The safe attitude that you can only judge a building on quantifiable aspects such as cost per m2, U-Values and air changes per hour. There is no attempt to look at the qualities the building possesses.
6. Good pun, credit where it’s due.
7. Lamenting the fact that Kenmare has no cultural activities within an argument against a new cultural centre in Kenmare. How insular.

Overly complex language is bad architects compensating for bad architecture (few exceptions of course)

“I would go as far as to say sometimes the ideas encompassed in a building are more important that the building itself.”
After 5 years of UCD listening to that old line, I would have to say no… its not, ever.

Architects should never have to big up their buildings, but rather let the “intellectuals” and “critics” read what they want into them.

@what? wrote:

2. The purpose of language is to communicate. It is generally not possible to discuss/ communicate complex ideas through simple language other than by allusion or some other diffuse reference.

Communication must occur in alternation, if the reference of the allusion is not understood by the recipient party, then it is not a communication…. it is fudge and nonsense, and shows a poor choice of the reference in the first place. Prime examples being the prose published in this thread.
There is a trend towards the misuse of vocabulary and syntax in an incredibly poor fashion and in a wholly unnecessary manner to describe ‘complex ideas’.
I agree that a certain specific use of language is suitable for use in order to illicit a different way of thinking from clients and users, but there are some very very bad examples out there.

Here is a very good example of an architectural explanation without resorting to unnecessary nonsense…

Ben van Berkel: ‘The structure of the Mercedes-Benz Museum is based on a trefoil. The clover-leaf structure mathematically consists of three overlapping circles, of which the centre becomes a void forming a triangular atrium The semi-circular floors rotate around the central atrium forming horizontal plateaus which alternate between double and single heights. It is spatially complex; you can not see the trefoil from the museum. By using the strong design model we were able to organise ideas of infrastructure, exhibition spaces, programme and even structure. We looked at ideas of how, by moving through the chronologically ordered exhibition spaces from top to bottom, visitors follow the edge line of the building like a time machine. The line you follow becomes a wall then a ceiling and then a space, blurring the distinction between line, surface and volume.’

@what? wrote:

One by one…

1. Still fine even if you do have to live in it. Again the prosaic is not always the aim.
2. The purpose of language is to communicate. It is generally not possible to discuss/ communicate complex ideas through simple language other than by allusion or some other diffuse reference.
3. It sits with comfortable ease.
4. 11%+ ??? You don’t sound like the enlightened kind of character that would lavish that fee on a building design.
5. Duncan Stewart personifies the imaginatively arid, culturally bereft attitude commonly held towards architecture in Ireland. The safe attitude that you can only judge a building on quantifiable aspects such as cost per m2, U-Values and air changes per hour. There is no attempt to look at the qualities the building possesses.
6. Good pun, credit where it’s due.
7. Lamenting the fact that Kenmare has no cultural activities within an argument against a new cultural centre in Kenmare. How insular.

It’s a sad day for the architectural profession if a qualified architect states, as you do, that “the ideas encompassed in a building are more important that the building itself.

It is clear that you do not even try to understand. Your sophistry speaks for itself. No point in arguing each point, but just two clarifications: (a) I have paid 11%+ to an architect for my last house – it probably is more than most young archis will earn this year. (b) I never argued against a new cultural centre for Kenmare, what I railed about was the nonsense composed by the designing architect, who included a picture of a few rocks (distant from the proposed site) at low water and referred to “The strong east west orientation of rocks on the site, like a school of whales.” (The correct term, BTW, is a pod of whales.)

There is a little book you should read. Produced by “The Economist,” the online version is available free – http://www.economist.com/research/StyleGuide/
In it there is a reference to Jargon:

Jargon

Avoid it. You may have to think harder if you are not to use jargon, but you can still be precise. Technical terms should be used in their proper context; do not use them out of it. In many instances simple words can do the job of exponential (try fast), interface (frontier or border) and so on. ….
Avoid, above all, the kind of jargon that tries either to dignify nonsense with seriousness

Sadly, McLoughlin did not read it, or he would not have tried to dignify seriousness with nonsense. Furthermore, for all the old guff for e.g. “We have designed the building by discovering a founding narrative for the site and showing how the deeper geological order has allowed a local culture to emerge and how this has, in turn, shaped the wider natural landscape.”
Does he not know that Kenmare is a recent town, founded long after Cromwell? In Irish its name is Neidin, not as one would expect, Ceann Mara.
Perhaps though, he is correct. Maybe the local culture did emerge from “the deeper geological order ” and crawled out from under it?

The proposed site, BTW ,currently is a CoCo junkyard for old machinery, tar barrels and road chips.
K.

@KerryBog2 wrote:

It’s a sad day for the architectural profession if a qualified architect states, as you do, that “the ideas encompassed in a building are more important that the building itself.

I was waiting for someone to take out the “sometimes” from that sentence and quote it back to me.

Anyone remember this letter? I’m an architect and I’m constantly frustrated by the insular nature of the profession. I think we close ourselves off to so much. As u can tell from the comments above I also think we talk an incredible amount of sh*te!

We don’t exist in our own artistic and cultural vacuum and I think we’ve pushed ourselves to a position of ridicule and irrelevancy by talking and talking.

“Once, a long time ago in the days of yore, I had a friend who was studying architecture to become, presumably, an architect.

Yours truly,
Annie Choi”

http://www.butterpaper.com/vanilla/comments.php?DiscussionID=1095

I realise the conversation has moved on a bit, but I just wanted to answer this:

@what? wrote:

Ctestiphon – Explain LaTourette in a sentence “ it’s a concrete monastery?” is that sufficient to communicate the ideas latent in a piece of architecture so rich?

Of course it’s not sufficient. But the point isn’t brevity, it’s clarity. It’s possible to describe the building in a sentence, but that obviously wouldn’t do it justice. And too few words can be as much a problem as too many words or over-contrived language. David Watkin (whatever you might think of the architecture that he advocates) is a model of comprehensibility in writing on architectural history; Hugh Pearman has a style I admire among current journalists (and I’m not just saying that because he might be lurking here). Much of the writing in contemporary journals seems to be heavy on zeitgeisty buzzwords and quasi-technical terms, which I often suspect is a cover for an inability to communicate ideas in simple terms. Or, put another way, they are given to sesquipedalian excesses at the expense of plain speaking.

@gunter wrote:

edit: sorry ctestiphon, I think -what?- addressed that question to you!

@KerryBog2 wrote:

Ctestiphon is well able to stand on his own two feet

Thanks lads. It’s nice to know you’ve got my back, though!

PS what?- As I’ve noted before, you and I have some different views on architecture in general (I think I referred to you recently as an advocate of ‘Architecture with a big A’). Whilst I do appreciate where you’re coming from on this, I think you’re slightly getting the wrong end of the stick. Nobody is arguing that buildings should be dumbed down (I don’t think they are, anyway); we’re just saying that the writing (description, explanation, analysis) needn’t be complex in talking about a complex structure, or even a complex idea behind a simple structure.

(Perhaps a thought for another day- if ‘sometimes the ideas encompassed in a building are more important that the building itself’, is it necessary for the building to be built, or would it be sufficient for it to exist as a concept? Some of the best buildings in the world never got off the page.)

@ctesiphon wrote:

…….. to sesquipedalian excesses at the expense of plain speaking.

Heck ctesiphon, you’re at risk of being too loquacious by half!;)
K.

I note what?’s ancestors of the 18th century harboured a similar frustration:

“If one looks at the lovely buildings here which that man built, and sees how they have already been disfigured by the narrow and dirty deeds of men, how these lay-outs were often beyond the powers of the clients, and how little these valuable monuments to a great mind fit in with the lives of these others, then it occurs to one that it is like this in other things also: for one gains little gratitude from people, if one increases their inner needs, gives them great ideas about themselves and wants to make them feel the marvellousness of a true, noble existence… How Palladio’s basilica looks, set right next to an old fortress-like building littered with irregular windows, which the architect will certainly have imagined away along with the tower, can hardly be expressed, and I have to pull myself together in an extraordinary manner: for here also I unfortunately find precisely what I run away from and what I look for right next to each other.”

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
19th September 1786
Vicenza

‘Pecha Kucha’ at 7pm this evening in the Sugarclub, is that worth going to, or not?

I don’t like the sounds of a fiver in! not unless it’s some kind of architectural karaoke night.

”We feel it is important for us to highlight our creative culture, develop it and then share it with others”. Nathallie Weadick of the Irish Architecture Foundation.

On the other hand, if it’s as lively as their discussion boards, we could be in for a very restful evening :rolleyes:

Is there free wine?

😎 http://www.pecha-kucha.org/

maybe they can fly in some intercontinentals to liven things up;)
Might have a presentation next time… 😀

Now that I’d pay to see.

A packed house this evening, with the aisles lined with latecomers. Rarely does one encounter such a concentration of young beards and thick-rimmed spectacles – many architects really do live up to the stereotype. The proliferation of 20/30-something women also spoke volumes about how the profession has changed here over the past decade.

Ali Grehan, Dublin City Architect, spoke eloquently as ever about Dublin City Council’s intention to register Dublin in contention for World Design Capital 2014. As distant, and perhaps as far-fetched, as it may sound, I think it is achievable if we got our act together. As the concept dictates:

“A World Design Capital is not a status designator, rather a state of being. It is defined by the commitment that a city has made to use design to reinvent itself. Sustainable results or a commitment to develop the city are visible and a changing attitude is detectable. As such, the World Design Capital designation is awarded to recognise innovative cities that have most effectively and, more importantly, creatively, used design as a tool for progress.“

i.e. it is something that does not necessarily demand large-scale expressions – indeed design on the small scale is almost preferable: tying in with Grehan’s stated vision of ‘excellence in the ordinary’. It would require major leaps however. And realistically, in an area that is very challenging, the very place many cities would probably find the easiest to effect real change from – the local authority.

She also spoke of a variety of community projects. A picture that got one of the biggest responses was a fanned antique granite pavement infilled with tarrnac 😉

sporting a new hair style? I’m jealous…
Where are the freestylers?

From an AAI /UCC lecture “Stasus will be discussing their recent work including Animate Landscapes from the forthcoming Pamphlet Architecture 32: Resilience. The project for an experimental film institute, mediates between a postindustrial site in Warsaw and the Edinburgh studio in which it was developed. By identifying, interrogating and ultimately reinforcing the physical and immaterial conditions of both landscape and studio, the project generates a new space from an attention to remnants, silence and the complex temporality of anachronistic things.”

Now I know why I’m a planner…

Translates as:

“Moody, Scottish git without a decent concept is working on a project that falls between two stools.”

you guys are hilarious!!!
It seems like the black crow is watching…

ssshhhh you, i’m interrogating silence

The RIAI has a new president in Michelle Fagan and she’s going to fix you with her steely gaze from the foot of the president’s column for the next 12 issues, as if we weren’t feeling a cold chill already.

Anyone who slept through the presidency of Paul Keogh is likely to wake with a jolt.

‘The RIAI . . . doesn’t shirk any problem or issue . . .’
‘The RIAI is the registration body’.
‘The RIAI needs to be strong to act . . . as an advocate and protector of architecture, and to do this we need the support of the entire profession.’
‘. . . still greater effort is required to acquaint the members and the public with what is happening so that we can strengthen the RIAI’s hand and relevance.’

Sit up straight and stop wallowing in self pity. The comparison is made with the medical and legal professions. ‘They are considered essential, we are not, why not?’

Answering her own question: ‘There is a perception that architects are a luxury and we are associated with spending big money, we are seen by the public as being a little remote.’

‘Communication is more important than ever but it is a two-way process, we have to not just communicate with the members and the public, we also have to listen.’

The first listening posts will be set up outside Homebase and B+Q where, at the first sign of a uninformed member of the public venturing in to buy tiles for a bathroom revamp, a sleeper cell will be activated and a jaunty architectural GP dispatched to confront the errand home owner on the design implications of this up-planned move.

‘The business of architecture is dependant on the strength of the culture of architecture.’

The culture of architecture means business.

If architects become a bit more business-oriented then that’s no bad thing, I reckon.
They have to be able to see how and where the impact of their services brings higher value to their clients if they want to score with those clients.

But the thing I’d like to see the new Prez do – as I’d like all professional bodies do – is to move away from leadership of the profession by the over-50s.
We’re in the 21st century, the epoch characterised not simply by change but rather by the increasingly rapid pace of change. Decisions made – or left unmade – by the old farts within sight of the pension line are the stuff that the younger members must live with for their full careers.
It’s time that all professions reformed the degree of involvement of their full membership (and I think apprentices or students ought be involved here too) in all matters affecting their future working life.
Way I see it, no one at that age of their life has the stomach for major changes.
And those oul fellas with a few professional killings to their name are even more mellow by then.
Yet these are the people charged with getting their profession in tune with the needs of society and the economy into the future . . . Bonkers.

Alan Mee on magic mushrooms is the highlight of this month’s ARCHITECTURE IRELAND.

‘Urban Agenda Backstory’ is a splendidly hallucinogenic trip through the recent architectural history that we could have had if Haughey had seized power and married Zaha Hadid, and then died and left everything to An Taisce.

All you can do now is curse reality.

any visuals? have not been able to log in…

The only visual is this tasteful 1980s version of a 1930s airport planned for the docklands in a student thesis by Reenie Elliott. It was included in the Dublin City Quays Project published in 1986 by the UCD School of Recent Architecture.

There were a few other distinctly Modern Movement projects in that little gem of a publication, but most of the content was – violently – Post-Modern.

Mee has the good grace not to visit that particular Post-Modern ghost-of-the-recent-past-that-we-could-have-had in his hugely entertaining trip, but then I guess there is a limit to how far mushrooms will get you.

. . . . I’m sure I have a copy of that UCD Quays Project here somewhere

We never get any feedback from those architectural discussions/free lunches hosted by the DARC people, does nobody go?

Theme today was politics and architecture with Ciaran Cuffe, formerly of both parishes, in the chair.

Ruairi Quinn is the other duel citizen that comes to mind, here [in an I.T. article of July 1975] he waxes lyrical on the architectural breakthrough that was 10-11 South Leinster Street, recently demolished and replaced by the type of ”fully-glazed” block Quinn was telling us had gone out of style.

I think that gem deserves a wider audience…