Reply To: venting views.
Yes perhaps I have neglected to mention that, no I don’t think that it should be left up to the architects alone, but as celfi (sorry for dragging you into this) so informatively noted the design of the housing blocks in question erected in the guise of contemporary design, are so badly designed, obviously one could not assume that these projects can be left in the hands of architects alone.
As for my comments about the fact that there is no room for dicussion in forums, it may have been written in heat and haste, and for this zealous and impetuous outburst I apologise, but room for debates on topics like Dublins ugliest building a debate so complacentl, when there are oboviously other problems to address firstly and foremostly like the proper design of functional spaces and sustainable design (that’s design that lasts well into the unforeseeable future while going easy on energy costs and resources) ref. celfi’s last comments.
I take the example of the tower blocks in Ballymun. If it were a higher “class” of clientel living in these tower blocks then I’m sure people wouldn’t have as much of a problem with how they look on the skyline etc. If it were a higher “class” of clientel living in these tower blocks then it would probably be because they are better designed, more from the inside out, sustainable, with proper vertical and horizontal circulation, thus promoting more community interaction, keep the rain out, have proper durable drainage and plumbing services and larger more spacious rooms with proper ventilation. If there were a higher “class” of clientel living here they wouldn’t be torn down, and the argument about how they look would be rendered inconsequential. But the problem isn’t the clientel, because the higher class of clientel moved out a long time ago.
If high rise apartments can work in New York, London, Copenhagen, Stockholm, places in Paris, Amsterdam etc. why can’t they work in Dublin?
Yes it is the developers who dictate the size and layout and plot ratios of schemes.
Then the architect suitably adjusts to the needs of the planning laws and the final product is compromised as regards healthy design. Design should not only be beautiful or humane and fully functional,but should also include, aspects relating to social/cultural, yes economic, and environmental impacts, which from my admittedly more limited experience, than any of you practising, is being largely ignored by too many people, ranging from clients and/or developers, architects and planners, who are responsible for this work.
I read somewhere that presently the environmental impact assesment (E.I.A.) for the new propsals in Ballymun was done away with, due to the fact that, when submitted for planning the land area footprinted by this scheme, eventhough twice the size of the land area recommended for any E.I.A., was broken down into smaller plots to avoid the “unnecessary” wasting of time entailed in doing such a study. As if the first mistake wasn’t enough. I mean it’s laughable!
Maybe when I come down from my ivory tower of late nights in the studio meagre nutrition, and the other sacrafices students like myself make for our courses, then maybe I’ll see the real world. Until then I’m happy to raise points I see worthy of discussion. Anything wrong with that.
True. Good design is not expensive design.
I also believe maybe too many have this contrary idea. If more people realised this then maybe building costs would go down and the needs for attractive factors such as tax incentives, and land rezoning would be greatly reduced,(as the total cost is proportionately greatly reduced) and a fairer share would be available for everyone.
Right now the rush for such money saving opportunities seems to be torrential, and as a result, difficult for first time buyers, who often have no choice but to rent the apartments on offer, hinders the aquisition of loans and ensures difficulty in maintaining a balance in the housing and construction market.
P.S. why should I calm down, am I touching home?