A city constrained by a Frank McDonald credo would be ‘dismal and prissy’ –

I thought this a fine article myself but don’t know if it’s fair or not, in truth. He did also praise some projects

Trouble is / good thing is that McDonald’s article has now gone all around the globe…….maybe you could include some details of projects which would counter his claim……. you know the, good stuff if there is any?

:rolleyes: He does seem quite unhappy with the Architecture & Town Planning in Ireland perhaps he may be happier in Poundbury or Switzerland ?

@Owen O´ Callaghan wrote:

Perhaps Mr McDonald’s real difficulty is that Cork is in the midst of one of the most exciting development phases in its history.

Oooh who ever said anything about Cork people, chips, and shoulders?

Im sure in speaking about a thriving city, Mr O C must be refering to the wonderful Mallow road that was built above/ on top of the residential and urban townscape beneath; theres one I certainly overlooked in my contributions to the best roads/ worst roads thread. ( I cannot think of a worse scheme built in Ireland in recent years – inc Sligo) :rolleyes:

It’s surprising and gladdening that O’Callaghan cares to answer this criticism. I presumed his sole interest was profit. Then again maybe he just doesn’t like criticism of any kind.

Has Liam Carroll ever bothered to answer criticism of Zoe developments pokey flat blocks?

does seem like a weird thing to do………ask people to ignore McDonald and demand a right of reply where every paragraph mentions his name.

Speaking of chips and shoulders… I think FMcD would also qualify. I am impressed by the article. It’s so easy to think of developers as faceless money-hungry types devoid of architectural awareness. It’s good to see a developer responding to his detractors in a robust fashion. It gives hope for future OCP projects in the Cork region (I suppose noone wishes to sh1t in their own back garden!).

@d_d_dallas wrote:

Speaking of chips and shoulders… I think FMcD would also qualify. I am impressed by the article. It’s so easy to think of developers as faceless money-hungry types devoid of architectural awareness. It’s good to see a developer responding to his detractors in a robust fashion. It gives hope for future OCP projects in the Cork region (I suppose noone wishes to sh1t in their own back garden!).

I have to say I read the reply with a smile. The article is very short-sighted and a little pompous – but then again, I and other residents of the Cork area have a knowledge of the structures in question. Opinion is one thing, but as Mr. O’Callaghan notes ‘ pontificating ‘ is another.

@Frank Taylor wrote:

It’s surprising and gladdening that O’Callaghan cares to answer this criticism. I presumed his sole interest was profit. Then again maybe he just doesn’t like criticism of any kind.

Has Liam Carroll ever bothered to answer criticism of Zoe developments pokey flat blocks?

I do think its very interesting and it has revealed a lot more to me about O’Callaghan properties and i have to say like dallas and lex, I too am impressed.

@hutton wrote:

Oooh who ever said anything about Cork people, chips, and shoulders?

I think that is indeed the stereotypical depiction of Corkonians, and no doubt there is some truth in it – though I feel it has to do with a lot of ‘playing up’ to the expectations as well. That said, the same can be said for Dublin – I think it is particularly evident to anyone travelling to the Capital, not a resident. The difference is the historic or cultural association of such mentality is not as well promoted regarding Dubliners. But I suppose that’s straying from the point at hand and is a discussion for another day and thread..

…I am glad to see that someone, who has received brunt criticism has defended their position. Its easy, as this website well knows, for the media to spread whatever opinion they wish and in some cases without recompense. The reply I think breathes new dimensions into the perception of developers in Ireland – who are so usually generalised into a misconception (though that’s not to say it isn’t applicable to some). 🙂

Have to agree with Lex, yeah the article was a little self important, but it did hit the nail on the head.

McDonald has made a career out of being negative about things, perbaps he just needs to lighten up?

The central point O’Callaghan made was that Cork missed a lot of the late 90s development that Dublin saw, and is only getting off the ground now. Hence development in Cork is generally better planned, both in a local and strategic sense. Whether thats evidence of a chip on the shouolder of Corkonians (or just an inherent superiority … 😉 ) is a different matter entirely.

Ok, so some of the new development is not going to win any awards. Would Mr McDonald prefer if the sites were still derelict? Is a falling down city inherently better and more worthy than one that, while new and well planned, just doesn’t meet the high standards set by critics elsewhere?

I think that this reply basically sums up all that’s bad with developers in this country – breathtaking arrogance, no willingness to accept past mistakes (the merchant’s quay shopping centre is truly indefensable no matter what the ecomomic climate was at the time), and a general sense that he believes that all development is good development… For god’s sake the Lavitts Quay development is one of the most disgusting things I have ever seen and I’d challenge anyone to defend it. In many ways its worse than Merchant’s Quay because so much money has been thrown at it that the end result could have easily been something with a bit of grace… Exactly the same is true of Mahon Point – another completely soulless tarmac desert with some tin boxes thrown around and a bit of copper to make it “interesting”, It’s Blanchardstown/Liffey Valley/Tallaght all over again and it doesnt work! Why do you think all of the above are looking at major redevelopment plans already involving streets and places and mixed uses.
I’m not saying that I totally agree with McDonald’s article – there are lots of smaller scale developments of high quality going on and a great energy in the city at the moment. Ballincollig Town Centre is a very interesting looking scheme and I’m looking forward to seeing it in the flesh. But I’d rather have Frank McDonald, someone who knows something about architectural quality and good urban spaces, lecture me than some money grabbing developer…

@BTH wrote:

I think that this reply basically sums up all that’s bad with developers in this country – breathtaking arrogance, no willingness to accept past mistakes (the merchant’s quay shopping centre is truly indefensable no matter what the ecomomic climate was at the time), and a general sense that he believes that all development is good development… For god’s sake the Lavitts Quay development is one of the most disgusting things I have ever seen and I’d challenge anyone to defend it. In many ways its worse than Merchant’s Quay because so much money has been thrown at it that the end result could have easily been something with a bit of grace… Exactly the same is true of Mahon Point – another completely soulless tarmac desert with some tin boxes thrown around and a bit of copper to make it “interesting”, It’s Blanchardstown/Liffey Valley/Tallaght all over again and it doesnt work! Why do you think all of the above are looking at major redevelopment plans already involving streets and places and mixed uses.
I’m not saying that I totally agree with McDonald’s article – there are lots of smaller scale developments of high quality going on and a great energy in the city at the moment. Ballincollig Town Centre is a very interesting looking scheme and I’m looking forward to seeing it in the flesh. But I’d rather have Frank McDonald, someone who knows something about architectural quality and good urban spaces, lecture me than some money grabbing developer…

Thank you, thank you, somebody talking commen sense again !!

@BTH wrote:

I think that this reply basically sums up all that’s bad with developers in this country – breathtaking arrogance, no willingness to accept past mistakes (the merchant’s quay shopping centre is truly indefensable no matter what the ecomomic climate was at the time), and a general sense that he believes that all development is good development… For god’s sake the Lavitts Quay development is one of the most disgusting things I have ever seen and I’d challenge anyone to defend it. In many ways its worse than Merchant’s Quay because so much money has been thrown at it that the end result could have easily been something with a bit of grace… Exactly the same is true of Mahon Point – another completely soulless tarmac desert with some tin boxes thrown around and a bit of copper to make it “interesting”, It’s Blanchardstown/Liffey Valley/Tallaght all over again and it doesnt work! Why do you think all of the above are looking at major redevelopment plans already involving streets and places and mixed uses.
I’m not saying that I totally agree with McDonald’s article – there are lots of smaller scale developments of high quality going on and a great energy in the city at the moment. Ballincollig Town Centre is a very interesting looking scheme and I’m looking forward to seeing it in the flesh. But I’d rather have Frank McDonald, someone who knows something about architectural quality and good urban spaces, lecture me than some money grabbing developer…

The one thing I’ve come to learn over the years about architecture is (to borrow a good friend’s phrase) “it’s a matter of opinion, and my opinion matters”. Architecture, for me, has always been about creating an environment which betters the nature of an area for the people – it is an increasingly important facet of our society and one which I believe deserves recognition. My belief is that boundaries need to be consistently challenged – like any foray, mistakes are made. It is part of the learning process and as with anything, design cannot progress without lessons – the trick is to minimise these mistakes. We are a lucky society – the public have become increasingly aware of the benefits and importance of architecture – because in today’s environment, we are in a position to do so. Frankly, I’m delighted we are – and this type of debate is part of that process in the progression of our ideas about architecture, urban design and development as a whole.

The recent winner of the Kyrls Quay CCC/RIAI Architectural Ideas Competition was awarded to Conroy Architecture – a design, I personally find utterly boring. Is that an attack on Conroy Architecture’s skill, imagination or workmanship? Not in the least, it is an opinion, a panel of architecurally apt individuals, as well as individuals with extensive planning and urban design knowledge deemed the project worthy of the award. Doesn’t mean I like it though. Likewise, similar panels found reason to award the likes of 21 Lavitts Quay, CityQuarter, Mahon Point, Victoria Mills…and so on. Does it mean you have to like it? Nope. Frank McDonald’s opinion is valid, it’s the otherside of the coin, but there is a line that must be thread – notably in his argument, Mr. McDonald went for expressing his opinion to borderline attack. Where people may not see this is perhaps because they are unfamiliar with the context. I happen to like 21 Lavitts Quay for example, I think Patrick Cashman & Associates provided an interesting variance in shape, height and materials shielding what is generally accepted as something of an eyesore – give me 21 Lavitts Quay any day of the week. In fact, I hope similar imagination and scale is applied to the future OCP effort at 16 Lavitts Quay – obviously with respect to the PS. It will bring continuity and variance to the quayside – one which can comfortably accommodate such scale, and prior to that one which was a mismatch of structural heights, qualities (dereliction) and gaping spaces which brought an air of inconsistency and ill care to the quayside. As for MQ, would I like to see the facades enhanced? Yes – but I still think MQ was a helluva positive development for Cork and I don’t think the disdain displayed by some toward it is worthy in the context. It’s easy for us to do so from our comfortable position now. As far as that goes, let me just say Eden Quay, Dublin – and that’s a product of our modern day, or perhaps the former Jurys in Waterford…. but this is not a comparitive, what is interesting to me is why in an article suppose to be related to the progress of architecture in Cork of recent times (in and around Cork2005) did Mr. McDonald feel the need to cite various developments as far back as 1989 to compound his argument? Mr. McDonald also failed to note quality and prominent architectural additions such as Camden Court, Coppinger Court or the redevelopment of the Kino?

Referring to Mr. O’Callaghan’s reply as ‘arrogant’ I think is somewhat arrogant in itself – I’m not critiquing anyone’s personal character here – but I’m simply saying that his reply, as far as I’m concerned is a clear indication of how importantly held his work is to him. It’s easy for cynics to cite ‘money grabbing’ etc etc – it’s an easy stereotype – the stereotype of politicians is corrupt, architects as arrogant, models as bimbos, Americans as obnoxious, the Irish as alcoholic red-heads dressed in green…but of course these are only stereotypes and you know as well as I do that these perceptions fall short greatly. Some of the nicest most decent people I know are architects, politicians and well, as for models – unfortunately I don’t know enough! :p The point I’m trying to make is that it’s an unfair generalisation and I am impressed that Mr. O’Callaghan felt so strongly that he did reply, it is clear that he feels passionately about his work and of his home. I think that’s a very good positive. Well done.

Well said Lex, I agree completely.
As for ‘money grabbing’ developers, that is a bit over the top. Every business has to make money and that is the prime objective, but it does not imply they all businessmeen are heartless individuals who don’t care about anything else except making money. Developers can of course be self-serving, just like any other profession…
Hmmm, I can see this becoming a slanging match between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ developers…scary, eh!
And as for Cork having a chip on its shoulder….sure it does, but sure isn’t that what makes it special 🙂

Posted by Lexington:
“Referring to Mr. O’Callaghan’s reply as ‘arrogant’ I think is somewhat arrogant in itself – I’m not critiquing anyone’s personal character here – but I’m simply saying that his reply, as far as I’m concerned is a clear indication of how importantly held his work is to him. It’s easy for cynics to cite ‘money grabbing’ etc etc – it’s an easy stereotype…”

It’s a clear indication that Mr O’Callahan thought that by having a critical report about his developments circulating in the media that his reputation would be harmed, that potential tenants may be put off and that potentially there may be more resistance to his future plans for flooding Cork with more architectural dross. Please don’t try and tell me that this guy or any other successful developer of this magnitude actually cares about the ARCHITECTURE (for that is what this forum and Frank McDonald’s article is about) of what he builds. What they care about is square footage, getting through planning and getting the thing built as cheaply as possible. And yes this may be a stereotype, but it’s one I, in practice, have found to be absolutely true – and nothing in O’Callaghan’s projects or in his attitude as displayed in his reply to McDonald’s article point to him being any different.
Am I arrogant? Possibly when it comes to architecture. I have very strong views borne from a passionate interest in the subject. Maybe it’s my frustration in seeing some of the crap thet is being inflicted upon our cities and towns that makes me so judgemental and negative in some of my posts. Ill stand by my views – Lavitts Quay is a disaster and set’s a frightening precedent for the rest of the development of the quays. I don’t care what it covers up or what was there before. What I see before me right now is a bloated, formless mass of masonry and glass – no attention to proportion, scale or materiality, just a jumble of “wallpaper” facades topped by overscaled roof forms which fail miserably to mask additional floorspace. Can someone please post a picture here so that people can make up their own minds as my words cannot describe how awful it really is.

As for the rest of Lexington’s last post – It’s a great reply and it spells out his position and views superbly. I don’t agree with a lot of what he’s saying but then that’s what this place is all about – debate and conflicting opinions and trying to understand that we are all coming from differing angles and viewpoints. It’s not about right or wrong, good and bad – even if some of my more inflammatory posts can sometimes go a little down that line!

I still think for example that any justification of Merchant’s Quay shopping centre can’t mask the simple fact that it is, and always has been, a seriously ugly building. Just because it was built when the economy was in the doldrums doesn’t excuse it from criticism now. And it’d take a lot more than a new facade treatment to improve a fundamentally flawed layout – how will this stretch of Cork’s Quayside ever be brought to life with nothing but loading bays and fire exits to activate the street edge?

The reality is, and this is why Frank McDonald went so far back as to criticsze something built in 1989, that Merchant’s Quay makes probably the biggest negative impact on the city visually – moreso as it, along with the Bus Station, marks most people’s first point of arrival at the city centre when coming from any part of the country. It’s a disgrace to Cork and something needs to be done with it urgently.

Anyway, ranting again… But opinions matter!

21 Lavitts Quay foreshortened by the estate agent’s camera angle

Interesting article from a couple of viewpoints IMHO.
First, I doubt if anyone else other than o’callaghan would have the clout to get an article published in the IT property supplement.Some threats made to pull advertising/friends in high places type carry-on? (AFAIK a significant amount of the IT’s revenue is derived from the prop. supplement)

Secondly with regards to Dublin and any kind of objective criticism of built environment developments FMcD is very much a busted flush.His feet are too cosy under the table with the movers and shakers in the big smoke.When’s the last time he told it like it is on some of the less than brilliant projects under construction in the capital? Seems to me Cork is where he can vent his spleen cuz he is not beholden to any sectoral intersests down there.

@Frank Taylor wrote:

21 Lavitts Quay foreshortened by the estate agent’s camera angle

The plant room (or whatever it is) on the Opera House roof that has been so perversely used as the height barometer for new-look Lavitt’s Quay is carefully included.

Here was the Quay before it was so rudely overwhelmed – courtesy of the NIAH.

http://www.buildingsofireland.ie/niah/search.jsp?type=record&county=CO&regno=20513139

I believe it’s a fly tower .
Agreed, it should not have been used to set the new datum.

Having been in Cork the week before the Stirling Prize was announced I happened to read a full page article on the Glucksman Gallery written by a certain IT journalist. It wouldappear that Dunlop O’Callaghan has as poor a grip on fact as he has design taste.

@Bob Dole wrote:

I believe it’s a fly tower .
Agreed, it should not have been used to set the new datum.

I disagree – as part of prospective further development at the Opera House, a number of enhancement and extension options had been envisaged as far back as 1998/9. Among these, as indicated by Gerry Barnes himself, a vertical extension. Though some planners did note that building height should not use the fly-tower as a benchmark – the decision regarding 21 Lavitts Quay was overturned by Director of Planning Services and City Manager. Besides the desire to reclaim city centre office development – undoubtedly the Opera House propsect was a factor. This stretch of Lavitts Quay is well capable of accommodating this scale of structure – the new OCP building conveys such prominence given its positioning and with gaping spaces to either side of it – its a good building, but the quayside will be provided with further continuity with prospective development at 16 Lavitts Quay infilling the gap between 21 Lavitts Quay and an extended Opera House – with a possible (and I highlight ‘possible’) vertical extension to the rear of the PS to the west (???).

Having been in Cork the week before the Stirling Prize was announced I happened to read a full page article on the Glucksman Gallery written by a certain IT journalist. It wouldappear that Dunlop O’Callaghan has as poor a grip on fact as he has design taste.

??? :confused:

This being from Owen O’Callaghan who brought us that wonderful ‘design’ (and I use that term in it’s loosest possible sense) that is the Liffey Valley Shopping Centre – grey galvanised shite, with soul destroying interior (with pretentious ‘Rotundas’ lest we forget) all set in a sea of tarmacadam. Take a bow Mr O’Callaghan, your RIAI gold medal and Sterling Prize are in the post.

Mahon Point looks exactly the same but with copper instead of that galvanised look

@Rory W wrote:

This being from Owen O’Callaghan who brought us that wonderful ‘design’ (and I use that term in it’s loosest possible sense) that is the Liffey Valley Shopping Centre – grey galvanised shite, with soul destroying interior (with pretentious ‘Rotundas’ lest we forget) all set in a sea of tarmacadam. Take a bow Mr O’Callaghan, your RIAI gold medal and Sterling Prize are in the post.

Mahon Point looks exactly the same but with copper instead of that galvanised look

I’m playing devil’s advocate here so don’t take it to heart:

Indeed arguments can be made regarding linkage of the various issues here mentioned, but as a general rule of thumb…

…is design more important than the economic well-being of citizens at large?
…in an environment that does not sustain the elegant standard of design we wish to see realise, is it justified to input finance into design and neglect the well-being of those to whom equivalent monetary value could otherwise be invested into skills, training, education, homes etc?

This is loose – so putting the frills to one side, just address the questions as asked. 😮

Psychologically surely it makes sense for money to be spent on good design which contributes to the area and gives those living and working in the proximity a boost – hasn’t Ballymun changed and calmed down since better design principles came into play as part of the regeneration? The emphesis on design shows that it is a vital part of the social regeneration of the area.

Where would you rather spend more time – a regenerated community street with multi-functional buildings that are in use on a 24 hour basis i.e. shops/bars/restaurant with offices and living accomodation overhead or a mono-use 9-6 (with late night til 9 on Thursdays) shopping box with little or no thought put into the design rather the throughput of shoppers that it could get?

Surely Liffey Valley stands as an example of “dismal” architecture. Pot and Kettle.

@Rory W wrote:

Psychologically surely it makes sense for money to be spent on good design which contributes to the area and gives those living and working in the proximity a boost – hasn’t Ballymun changed and calmed down since better design principles came into play as part of the regeneration? The emphesis on design shows that it is a vital part of the social regeneration of the area.

Where would you rather spend more time – a regenerated community street with multi-functional buildings that are in use on a 24 hour basis i.e. shops/bars/restaurant with offices and living accomodation overhead or a mono-use 9-6 (with late night til 9 on Thursdays) shopping box with little or no thought put into the design rather the throughput of shoppers that it could get?

Surely Liffey Valley stands as an example of “dismal” architecture. Pot and Kettle.

I think to deny that Liffey Valley did not enhance the Quarryvale area would be empty. The scheme brought hundreds of jobs to an economically and socially wanting area – this was in part thanks to employment training schemes undertaken by O’Callaghan Properties, which of course served a purpose in staffing LV, but nonetheless provided much needed skills and employment opportunities. A similar but far more developed initiative was engaged in Mahon – co-operatively between O’Callaghan Properties & FAS – essentially training and employment skills were afforded hundreds of local area residents. Many of these residents have been able to move on from initial opportunities at Mahon Point to other positions across the city and county.

I’m not arguing the architectural element – I’m just noting that both schemes enhance the economic and social circumstance of both these areas. Unsociable behaviour in areas like Mahon have markedly decreased (although right now I do not have an exact figure to hand) in the period 2002 to 2005 – much is attributed to improved economic circumstances. Similar to Ballymun I would believe. I took a drive through Ballymun a few weeks back and have to say I’m impressed by the progress – and indeed the empirically improved circumstances.

But it’s design that is being discussed here, and as such Liffey Valley falls flat on its face.
Don’t know which is worse – the faceless exterior or the remarkably monotonous interior. Has to be the most boring shopping centre I’ve ever been in. Alas Dundalk’s new place is largely modelled on it – vast vacuous double height malls with little visual interest punctuated by rotundas, and not a public seat in the building.

Lack of public seating is really disgraceful. Everybody is a consumer. God forbid that you’d take a break that didn’t involve buying an overpriced coffee. What about women that need to breastfeed her baby?

Here’s the latest from Frank on this saga………….

Irish Times 24/11/05

Cork: a city I’ve always liked a lot

nicemove.ie

Right of Reply . . . but poor urban design is having a negative impact on its fabric , says Frank McDonald, Environment Editor

Owen O’Callaghan’s piece last Thursday’s in Property must be welcomed. Whatever about its scathing tone, I’m glad that he didn’t take his own advice to ignore what I wrote the previous week about the poor architectural quality of some recent schemes in Cork.

We need more public debate in Ireland about architecture and urban design.

And since property developers play such a significant role in commissioning new buildings, it is always good to get their views on the record – particularly as so few of them are prepared to speak out.

Yes, the piece I wrote was negative, about Mahon Point and Merchants Quay shopping centres and the new development by O’Callaghan Properties on Lavitt’s Quay, as well as other schemes, such as the recently completed office block on Lapp’s Quay.

Mr O’Callaghan accuses me of “pontificating”. Yet most of the architecture columns I have written in this supplement over the years have been positive, highlighting the good work done by architects in Ireland – including Cork, which is a city I have always liked a lot.

I do not, as he suggested, hold any resentment of Cork and its success because I happen to be a Dubliner. Indeed, I have argued more than once that Cork should be at least twice its size (the same goes for Limerick and Galway), to counterbalance Dublin’s dominance.

I have also condemned the Government’s outrageous decision to overlook Cork for decentralisation. Instead of recognising the city as a real asset by relocating 920 public servants there, they were to be dispersed throughout the county, from Clonakilty right around to Youghal.

In previous articles on Cork, I wrote positively about the successful re-making of Patrick Street by Catalan architect Beth Ghali, the superb Glucksman Gallery at UCC by O’Donnell and Tuomey, and how Cork’s year as European Capital of Culture would focus attention on its potential.

It is against that backdrop, on the strength of four trips to Cork this year, that I was dismayed to find evidence – in the form of poor quality buildings – that the tired old “anything is better than nothing” approach to urban renewal seemed to be asserting itself in the city.

Every city has a character that makes it special, a genius loci or “spirit of place”. In Cork’s case, this is bound up with the River Lee and the way in which buildings address its quays, full frontally and with sharp edges. It is part of the essential Cork and cannot be discounted.

This is not, as Mr O’Callaghan maintained, a “formulaic mindset”, but rather a recognition of the character of the city. New buildings fronting the river must, therefore, address the quay primarily; they should not be designed in a way that gives equal prominence to side streets.

His own development at 21 Lavitt’s Quay is a mistake in that context. Not only is it grossly overscaled, but it celebrates the corner as if it was addressing two spaces of equal status – even though one is an 18th century river landscape and the other is merely a service lane.

By doing so, it severs the continuity of the quay and erodes the character of the city. The same applies to the new office block on Lapp’s Quay and even to the Clarion Hotel, even though it is obviously very welcome as a new place to stay in the heart of Cork.

On the issue of scale, I have never suggested that building heights in the centre of Cork – or of Dublin – should be limited to two or three storeys, as Mr O’Callaghan claimed was my “credo”.

That would be nonsensical. But a little more respect for context wouldn’t go amiss.

It will be interesting, and instructive, to see his plans for the Adelaide Street area. Will the shopping centre he wants to build there be inward-looking like Merchants Quay, or will it take on board new ideas in retail circles by retaining the tight urban grain with open-air malls? Yes, Cork has seen an unprecedented level of development in recent years.

But its “previous atrophied state”, as he described it, meant that the city managed to retain much of its fabric and was relatively unsullied, until now, by bad architecture and even worse urban design.

@lexington wrote:

I think to deny that Liffey Valley did not enhance the Quarryvale area would be empty. The scheme brought hundreds of jobs to an economically and socially wanting area – .

There were plans for a proper towncentre at Balgaddy which was flagged in the original plan to develop the three new towns orf Tallaght, Clondalkin and Blanchardstown.

What O’Callaghan did by using Frank Dunlop to tinker with the local authority consent system seriously undermined the capacity of the local authority to deliver those plans. The net effect of O’Callaghans intervention is negative economically as a result of the creation of significant negative externalities and opportunity cost.

@lexington wrote:

this was in part thanks to employment training schemes undertaken by O’Callaghan Properties, which of course served a purpose in staffing LV, but nonetheless provided much needed skills and employment opportunities. A similar but far more developed initiative was engaged in Mahon – co-operatively between O’Callaghan Properties & FAS – essentially training and employment skills were afforded hundreds of local area residents. Many of these residents have been able to move on from initial opportunities at Mahon Point to other positions across the city and county. .

Minimum wage level jobs in the main.

@lexington wrote:

I’m not arguing the architectural element – .

So why are you arguing on an architecture forum?

@lexington wrote:

Similar to Ballymun I would believe. I took a drive through Ballymun a few weeks back and have to say I’m impressed by the progress – and indeed the empirically improved circumstances.

Ballymun in contrast to anything O’Callagan has ever done was planned properly; featured a high standard of architecture and possesses real social facilities.

I hope that Frank McDonald devotes more of his well considered time and measured journalistic output on the large numbers of inappropriate developments taking plce in Cork City centre at present.

@Thomond Park wrote:

So why are you arguing on an architecture forum?

First off, I would understand that an architectural forum is more than a pleateau for ‘I like it’ or ‘I don’t like it’ commentaries. The variation in all walks of life which participate in these forums, including yourself, who do not all have strict architectural backgrounds would suggest that there is a greater depth to the discussions that take place here. Equally important to evaluating the end product, is the context and background to which a project has developed – this includes the processes in which a design has evolved through including the base idea (e.g. a gallery), site nature (e.g. small tennis court footprint), project location (e.g. UCC grounds among a density of established plantations), inspirational contributions (e.g. a ship), economics (e.g. how the project was funded in order to achieve the desired scale/usage/nature etc, was it viable? what are the internal and external affects of locating money in this project vs another?), planning process (e.g. how was the project affected in terms of scale, design etc as a result of planning process input/ was it successful at all? Did the planning process allow the primary aims of the developer/architect relationship maintain?), construction (was the project compromised at any level during the construction phase?), operation (have the goals of the project been realised since its completion? Financial targets met or exceeded? Design impact effective/unaffective?) – this list goes on, but architecture is an interdependent trade related to a myriad of objectives, foundations and processes. I personally think the journey of a project’s design in light of all these challenges and issues makes the birth of proposal all the more exciting. How an architect navigates his designs way through this is often a testament to their skill – as one architect said to me, “The design is the easy part.”
So why am I discussing the foundations of a project like Liffey Valley? Well, because although I agree that the design of a proposal is highly important – I believe consideration has to be applied to these other elements in understanding the empirical context. I don’t understand how you can judge a car by discussing it’s body alone – you must consider its engine, electronics, safety features, efficiency, price and so on to truly comment on it as a complete package.

@Thomond Park wrote:

Minimum wage level jobs in the main.

That’s a very disappointing point to make. First off, many of the jobs were actually above the minimum wage at the time (1998) – but moreover, many accountants start off on minimun wage when joining the profession themselves. The fact is, the employment programmes initiated provide skills training that was previously unavailable to many of the prospective employees at Liffey Valley. Even in cases were emloyees were afforded minimum wage jobs, the fact is, given the circumstances from which many came – the jobs provided them with input back into the Labour Force, provided them with skills to further their employment options, allowed them take home a respectable and honest day’s wage, contributed to the economic development of their area, offered them a higher level of disposable income, offered job progression in many cases – and so on. Many employees have continued on from Liffey Valley with the skills and portfolio the training programmes and job experience has afforded them and allowed progression or alteration in their employment circumstances. I think that if you ever sit down and talk to some of those who engaged in the programmes or even just entered employment at LV, few I think will argue the benefit they have been provided with. Furthermore, I think to simply address the employment circumstances of many employees at places like LV as ‘minimum wage jobs in the main’ undermines the positions held by many of those persons. The reason 60% of low-wage employment opprtunities (IBEC, 2002) have high like-for-like staff turnover levels is due to a.) temporary nature held by positions (e.g student work, part-time labourers, summer work) and b.) staff progression. I have much more respect for those persons willing to get up and take on employment than sit at home and say ” I’m not going to get to get a job over there cos it’s just minimum wage” – ??? Many of those who experienced long-term unemployment or unemployment at all – suffered from factors including lack of appropriate labour applied skills or skills that had become invalidated. Is Third-Level education not held in esteem given the fact that advancement in skill development enhances employment prospects, options and the ability to progress? At any graduate or early labour market entry level – of course wages will begin at a more trimmed level. I doubt very much if many surveyors entered at senior partner wage following graduation???

@Thomond Park wrote:

I hope that Frank McDonald devotes more of his well considered time and measured journalistic output on the large numbers of inappropriate developments taking plce in Cork City centre at present.

As for Frank McDonald’s article – though some of the logic is understandable, he forgets a number of things related to Cork and its development. As I believe another user who_me quite rightly pointed out – Mr. McDonald justifies his argument for example on points like quayside buildings in Cork needing to have ‘sharp-edges’ and ‘defined corners’ on the basis that a unique facet of Cork’s identity is based on its relationship to the River Lee and its channels. Indeed, that is an important facet – but another equally important facet, unique to Cork’s identity is the maze of little lanes and side-streets that criss-crossed the city and which were once hubs of activity. I cite, the French Quarter, Market Lane, Paul’s Lane, Grafton Street (yes we have one too!), Allinet’s Lane, Faulkner’s Lane, Dalton’s Avenue and others too numerous to mention. These lanes have died over the decades with the focus shifting to main streets like St. Patrick’s Street, Grand Parade, MacCurtain Street, South Mall and so on. In some cases, these lanes have been filled in or built over or used for inflill development. In fact, a journalist recently reported on Cork’s dying side-streets citing how one family business, 50-years in the running had to now close in the face of competition from the high-street chains pulling traffic away from the likes of traditional stores along the side-streets. Mr. McDonald paid particular focus to O’Callaghan Properties’ own development at 21 Lavitts Quay, whose sweeping glass facade on the corner of Lavitts Quay and Paul’s Lane curves dramatically into the lane. He argued that such styling detracts the focus away from the river and toward the laneway. I feel that Casman & Associates quite rightly highlighted this important but dying participant of Cork’s urban fabric. In fact, O’Callaghan Properties (OCP) have a similar scale project destined for their recently acquired site at 16 Lavitts Quay, bridging the gap between Cork Opera House and the new OCP HQ at 21 Lavitts Quay, although the site is a little more difficult to work with – I hope the project here provides a similar emphasis on Paul’s Lane. As it happens, OCP have plans to refurbish the long-standing Paul Street S.C. to the rear of 21 Lavitts Quay, as part of a larger project which will link the centre’s retail elements into additional retail schemes at Cornmarket Street, 16 Lavitts Quay and Academy Street (not Adelaide Street as mentioned in the Frank McDonald article). It is hoped that this renewal will help rejuvenate life and activity on the narrow pedestrian Paul’s Lane once again with uses opening out onto the lane and drawing traffic back into the area. In this context, the emphasis provided at quayside will provide an appropriate gateway and draw into the French Quarter area and this, it’s newly rejuvenated sector. Furthermore, Mr. McDonald cites OCP’s proposal for Academy Street – Project Architects and Gehl Architects (Urban Design Consultants) are scheduled to lodge the proposal on behalf of the company shortly. The project, in addition to retaining many of the important facades, will also seek to utilise what has become an abandoned side-street, Faulkner’s Lane. The lane, directly off Patrick’s Street has become nothing more than a series of derelict premises and uses (beyond that of an alternative lifestyle bar) – the Academy Street proposal will seek to actually widen the lane with retail use opening out onto the enhanced laneway, yet again given life to a dying facet. Mr. McDonald also criticises Howard Holdings’ CityQuarter project – noting that the Clarion Hotel element sweeps back into Clontarf Street in a prominently curved glass facade – I disagree that this detracts from the quayside. In addition to providing a stark contrast to the sharply, angular tower structure which forms part of O’Flynn Construction’s No.6 Lapps Quay – the sweeping nature of the project serves to emphasis the visual corridor between North and South Channels of the Lee and providing and otherwise deprived connection between the southern quays and the Northern Bank whose topography so strongly defines Cork’s character. Furthermore, it is funny that Mr. McDonald criticises emphasis of Cork’s streets or laneways when the Conroy Architecture proposal which won the RIAI/Cork City Council Architectural Competition for Kyrl’s Quay partially received the award for creating new north-south corridors and avenues by the regulated partition of building forms across the site.

Having said that, I in no way argue the valuable asset our River serves to afford this city. Anyone who has taken a trip to the London Docklands, or emerging Dublin Dokclands, will note the continuous river frontage embraced by some area projects. Personally I find these to be monotonous in their form and continuity – perhaps it is the standardized height that seems to impose itself on these new structures – but I for one, when it comes to the Cork Docklands area (which avails of a lengthy waterfrontage) would wish to see development avail of their proximity to the water, but also to allow for variation in building heights and forms so as to create a more distinct visual greeting and skyline. I would hope that these developments are not monotonous in their continuity and are appropriately broken with necessary greenspace fronting the water’s edge so as to provide a break and offer of new visual corridors – a sense of depth to the quayside. Back in the city centre, generally, newer quayside projects have paid attention to the historical character provided by the city’s old laneways (some leeway can be afforded the docklands in that it does not have the same complexity of historical development still in existance) by appropriately emphasising them (such as 21 Lavitts Quay or CityQuarter) – the city centre island is an area of the city which should seek to retain the character other cities have lost by taking a 1 dimensional approach to vantage, the river is important (and should be embraced) but so too should our city’s historical urban fabric. I agree with Mr. O’Callaghan when he says the blanket approach to ‘sharply angular’ quayside profiles and corners would be dismal and prissy – too many city’s have aspired to the standardized form of planning and architectural thinking on how modern cities should be developed, and as a consequnece have lost their character. The best architects, planners and developers have thought outside this box.

As for the rest of your points – I’ll have to get back to them at a later stage. After writing 3 reports and this reply, my typing fingers are exhausted!!! :p

Hey Lex,

I’m afraid I agree with Frank McDonald on this one:
where I disagree with you is that it seems you are blurring two ideas: the idea of acknowledging and bringing life to the lanes of Cork (asomething which is very important and adds to the uniqueness and charm of Cork) and the relationship of the corner to both the lane and quay.

Architecturally, there is a hierarchy of spaces between the lane and the quays. By using a non-differentiating device (the circular corner stuff) as Cashman & Assoc. has done, no respect has been shown to this hierarchy: both the lane and the quay are treated equally when they are not equal.
As an example of something working: The Gate Cinema also turns a corner – but it does so much more effectively than Lavitt’s Quay project, by putting a “window” onto the quay and its entrance onto North Main St – one is wide, one is narrow etc.

However,Mr. O’Callaghan shouldn’t be held responsible for the lack of sensitivity of his architect.

@Bob Dole wrote:

where I disagree with you is that it seems you are blurring two ideas: the idea of acknowledging and bringing life to the lanes of Cork (asomething which is very important and adds to the uniqueness and charm of Cork) and the relationship of the corner to both the lane and quay.

Architecturally, there is a hierarchy of spaces between the lane and the quays. By using a non-differentiating device (the circular corner stuff) as Cashman & Assoc. has done, no respect has been shown to this hierarchy: both the lane and the quay are treated equally when they are not equal.

Yes, I do agree there is a hierarchy – most definitely…

An old image – please note that the building is still under construction at this point and incomplete.

…I would have understood that the ground floor unit envisaged commercial usage (currently being used as a gallery), acting as a gateway entrance to the French Quarter, provided a relatively prominent vantage to laneway traffic. Having said that, if we draw a line at the point of division between quayside and lane, considering the glass facade, we find that a greater vantage is afforded the quayside. Greater recognition of the quays are exemplified in the upper floors where large open-view windows are afforded the 4th, 5th and 6th floor levels. The relatively vacant eastern facade was incorporated with consideration of existing planning on what was originally to be Irish Examiner offices designed by ORSA, later a Comfort Inn by RORSA and now subject to a new proposal by OCP. Perhaps the new proposal will help rectify any ills at the intersection whilst still affording an appropriate gateway. Point taken and appreciated though, it’s a very important one. 🙂

@Bob Dole wrote:

As an example of something working: The Gate Cinema also turns a corner – but it does so much more effectively than Lavitt’s Quay project, by putting a “window” onto the quay and its entrance onto North Main St – one is wide, one is narrow etc.

Re: The Gate –

this project remains utterly lost on me. I appreciate the clever structural points – but as for complimenting the quayside? The ground-floor window frontage does indeed act as a nice indoor/outdoor visual link – however its the lengthy seperation along which no active ground uses are incorporated limits quayside activity and instead diverts traffic (pedestrian) away from the quayside. The commercial units that form part of the adjoining apartment block never successful took off – I did address the issue and reasons behind it in another post related to Cork quaysides. In addition, the projects massing is unsightly, the multiplex facility is rudely cut off with an apartment (Garden City) collection inappropriately massed overhead which leads to a discontinuation in form. Use should have been considered at this point – the design failed to recognise that when accommodating residential use, residential activity would clearly follow. Instead of provision of a centralised external fixture area (like with schemes in Blackpool), an unsightly jumble of satellite dishes and clothes lines (on occassion) decorate the scheme overhead. Of course the usual option would be to blame the planning authority – but shouldn’t a design seek to consider its usage, protect its statement and have consideration for its external environment?

As for treating the lane/road with hierarchial consideration, the original design sought the provision of a glass tower structure which opened out at ground-level to quayside and North Main Street – its location (the current dent between multiplex entrance and apartment structure) and proximity to the street (on the eastern elevation) would surely have concentrated the focus on the street as oppose to the quayside by dominating all other facets of the project in this gateway effort.

i must admit – i have mixed feelings about Lavitt’s Quay. Up close, it is quite attractive and well detailed, bringing a much needed physical and active presence to the quayside- i do think, however, that the efforts to create a variation in the form and height of the building resulted in a gross over-design – basically a plethora of features and elements that are visually disruptive – i think that the design is well intentioned but is fundamentally flawed. i have to agree with F. MacDonald on the issue of the side street – the scale and height of the building on the quay and the laneway are the same – this is a narrow laneway and does not require height to articulate its presence – yes, it does need to have an active and used frontage but the excess in scale actually undermines its character and function. the laneways of cork, which define a large part of the city’s morphology are generally narrow and intimate secondary spaces that connect various districts – the most succesful are located in the Heugenot Quarter and are generally defined by buildings that relate physically and functionally to the scale of these laneway spaces – thay do not need the same treatment in terms of height and scale as buildings on Patrick st or the quays.

what has happened to lavitts quay. it is obvious to everyone that the development is too big. it is too high. in less economically sucessful times Mr O’Callaghan could have argued that he needed the floor areas to justify the development of the site but he owned most if not all of it for years. he cannot be excused for ignoring local context and squeezing so much from our environment to his benefit and our loss. this is the point. there are many good developments in cork that take a reasonable amount of return from a site and many responsable developers give the city long term and context specific developments.

the city belongs to us. it is the capital of the county and it expresses our values and our views in our time. the development at lavitts quay seriously lets us down and while we may wish to see the site developed we forget how the dereliction has been created. we have lost the respect for the city as an entity. this loss of respect for us and our city and our lack of confidence and civic pride is centrally demonstrated by this inconsiderate, possibly wellmeaning but greed driven development.
any strong city would recognise the necessity to maintain a sense of scale in this area, to maintain a sense of material quality and maintain a sence of continuity in the environment of the quay. a confident city would maintain a sence of respect for the environment by building a large building that did not compete with the public buildings in the area for attention. a confident city would not allow a building that did not reinforce the character of the city but took from it instead. cork has allowed this building that is out of context and does not even understand the simplest of architectural devices. the expression of this building on plan and in elevation discontinues the line of the quay and generally serves its own needs and ignores those of the city environment. it is anti society. this is not a matter of opinion as some try to argue [an argument of those less educated in a subject]. the ignorance of respect for the environment and character of cork expresses to us the whole basis of the building. we and our environment are being ignored to serve the needs of the few. this is like the globalisation of our environment,out of our control. those we pay to run our city have ignored us and allowed this disproportioate and decorated postmodern wedding cake, ignorant of even widely accepted architectural devices to add even further destruction to our environment.
the central fact here is that we still havent recognised how individual and specific the environment of cork city is. it still is an very specific environment and even a small amount of study of this environment should allow us to keep the thread of identity that runs through the city. good design comes from the study of the devices of past societies and context…. it isnt just a matter of opinion. the recognisable design thread that is is specific to us in cork and it exists in many cities in different ways eg. barcelona, paris, bath, venice …… is a central thread of identity that inspires consideration of the existing fabric and promotes confident and modern development and a strong long term economic climate. the development on lavitts quay erodes this thread that is our identity and erodes our confidence and our prospects to form a considerate and optomistic environment for our children. this building would seem dated, nieve and out of place in an average airport business park. why Mr O’Callaghan feels we deserve nothing more than this in our great city is beyond understanding.
anger often represents guilt Mr O’Callaghan and you seem to be angry. the little respect you have for us as you negativly exploit our environment is being recognised. bring back the Crawfords who gave us great schools and Art Galleries. we dont want developers that do not respect us, our great city or our environment.
in relation to the merchants quay it is not just that this building created a quayside that was destitute and empty but that the development decanted the interest of many different people from the area and instead of adding to our environment it took from us the vibrancy of a european city where many different property owners have an interest in an area. we lost a grain and atmosphere that is unique and developes over hundreds of years. this kind of environment can be wiped in a few months. the merchants quay anf the lavitts quay development are like a tumour within a city grain that remained unspoilet and in economic and environmental equilibrium over hundreds of years. in recession we should have helped these areas to survive and pull through not left them to the single ideas of one developer. what a loss for us and for our city.
there is no recession now and there are no excuses why we have to be served up this childlike development. Mr O’Callaghan please get some better advice and show us that you have the maturity to think of the future of our society as much as the future of your cheque book.

the economic redevelopment ot the lanes and the recognision of the architectural character of the city are compatable. almost everything you say makes sense lexington but you seem to have no confidence in the compatability of considerate urban design and the regeneration of areas and the sucessful economic development of individual sites.

let’s all be clear. the city needs better design to further the aims which we are all putting forward and which many of us agree on. what is difficult to swallow is the fact that we want development of the design standard of barcelona and we are being served up the standards of a buisness park in baisingstoke. we all need to respect the city centre environment and raise our standards and expectations.

@republicofcork wrote:

what has happened to lavitts quay. it is obvious to everyone that the development is too big. it is too high. in less economically sucessful times Mr O’Callaghan could have argued that he needed the floor areas to justify the development of the site but he owned most if not all of it for years. he cannot be excused for ignoring local context and squeezing so much from our environment to his benefit and our loss. this is the point. there are many good developments in cork that take a reasonable amount of return from a site and many responsable developers give the city long term and context specific developments.

Firstly, please consider https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=43383&postcount=1103.

1. The development’s massing and height were in part devised consequent of prelanning discussions with consideration for a number of aspects – including, the benchmark height also being set by the adjoining permission by Thomas Crosbie Holdings for new Irish Examiner offices, designed by O’Riordan Staehli Architects]
the city belongs to us. it is the capital of the county and it expresses our values and our views in our time. the development at lavitts quay seriously lets us down and while we may wish to see the site developed we forget how the dereliction has been created. we have lost the respect for the city as an entity. this loss of respect for us and our city and our lack of confidence and civic pride is centrally demonstrated by this inconsiderate, possibly wellmeaning but greed driven development.[/QUOTE]

3. The city belongs to all those that call it home – indeed. It is the representative of the broader county, I know some lads from West Cork who may argue that :p , but generally it is the accepted first destination associated with the county. However, our views are varied, the city is not a collective representation of each individual – if that were the case, those that do no qualify within the constraint brackets of the supposed collective representation would be neglected. Not everyone has a quarter of a million euros to buy a new home, not everyone likes milk in their cornflakes – that is what makes any society, and in the context of this argument, Cork, interesting. It is the collective mix. Each deserving of its expression – in indeed in many ways this is represented physically (in some instances) through our buildings. So does that call for a uniform pattern of structures? How exclusive would that be? Remember, our needs are represented by the demand we bestow upon our needs – individuals within our society interpret those needs and address their satisfaction which is rewarded through our custom i.e. bread and the baker, health and the medic, design and the architect etc. Dereliction is often the result where previously held interests associated with a structure or site have moved on. When a site is acquired by a third party, the interests of that third party may not necessarily rest with the previous incarnation of that structure and or site. As mentioned above, this is consequent of the variation of ideas, habits, rituals etc etc that form the fabric of our community. If the same principles and ideologies of one party rest with the other, then the uniform ideology would be the conservation of that building and/site but in the holistic scheme of things this would lead to a stagnant society where uniform ideologies make no room for variation – and thus, no progression. However, having said that, the retention of structures should be pronounced from a universal recognition of its historic or individualistic value. This recognition is generally conveyed at a public level through protected lists compiled by public sources. Where buildings are not documented for retention but are indeed said to enjoy merit, their retention is generally a discretionary advantage held by a proprietor – however the case for their retention can be made by third parties, quite rightfully in many instances, subject to the deliberation of a regulatory power (i.e. a planning authority). A good case for retention generally highlights the unique nature of a structure, how this came about and how a community would be worse off without it.

4. I disagree that respect, pride and confidence is lost in Cork. Pride seems more buoyant than ever – if it’s not sporting or cultural – take architecture as the case in check. The rise of debate in architecture, in Cork, over the passed few years has been extraordinary. It has been afforded by our economic terms, we are in a position now to do so, and I for one am glad. I like to think that the Cork threads in this forum have been participant in this – and as republicofcork is highlighting himself by participation here, it is. The fact that more and more public voices are now being heard concerning the development of our city is a clear sign that pride is alive and well, if not, growing. Public demand for higher and higher standards of architecture are clear representation of this. The public are more aware and in a better position to comment now, and the knowledge that they can voice their opinion on what is and what is not being built around their city is evidence of the esteem in which they hold their city and its future. I began participating in archiseek.com born of my pride in the city – I see it as having a long long way to go yet before it reaches its goals, but I see it on the way and I see its potential.

5. When you say ‘well-meaning’ but ‘greed driven’ – how is greed attached to the former? It’s somewaht a contradiction – ‘greed’ signifies anything but ‘well-meaning’. For me, 21 Lavitts Quay is about a progression toward potential – it may not be 100% perfect, but it represents a positive step in the learning process that we must undertake to find the appropriate pathway to achieving a potential which benefits the people and fabric of this city. For me, 21 Lavitts Quay (as with general development) is not about either of the phrases you highlight. It is about satisfying a function, a demand or a need whilst utilising the requirements of a location (with an eye firmly on the future – after all, when embarking on any project it is about assessing the present to engage in the future) and implementing various fundamentals to satisfy these requirements – i.e. to progress quayside rejuvenation, to promote public benefit – whether aesthetical (replacing views of a multi-storey with a more pleasing provision with a context to future development; breaking insular layout monopolies associated with the existing city centre to allow embracement of extended facets of the city centre – i.e. utilising the quaysides – and consequently enhancing the public realm; offering more choice etc etc etc). In this capacity, ‘inconsiderate’ is a phrase found wanting. Within the context of the surrounding structures – again, see Point 1.

@republicofcork wrote:

any strong city would recognise the necessity to maintain a sense of scale in this area, to maintain a sense of material quality and maintain a sence of continuity in the environment of the quay. a confident city would maintain a sence of respect for the environment by building a large building that did not compete with the public buildings in the area for attention. a confident city would not allow a building that did not reinforce the character of the city but took from it instead. cork has allowed this building that is out of context and does not even understand the simplest of architectural devices. the expression of this building on plan and in elevation discontinues the line of the quay and generally serves its own needs and ignores those of the city environment. it is anti society.

6. Perhaps the sense of scale could be attributed to issues concerned in the 1960s – i.e. the Opera House, saying that, its previous site occupant was a rather large structure in itself. More than any other building along this stretch of quay, the monotonous and ugly North Wall of Cork Opera House dominates the quayside. If 21 Lavitts Quay has achieved anything, it has been to minimise the impact of this structure with a more aesthetical considerate provision – and with view to prospective initiatives. I do not believe the project ‘takes’ from the city, and reiterate you to consider the greater context before it is realised. The material finish has been well considered – I dispute your argumenet stating otherwise, clearly effort has been afforded the final cladding finish concerning the office/commercial element which could so easily have reverted to a cheap zinc-cladded coating. Meanwhile, the variation in roof heights and angles breaks up the buildings mass and offers distinction in the different sections of the scheme. The western elevation transits to a red-brick finish in compliment to the Clarke building at the corner of Paul’s Avenue.

7. Considering its allowance by Cork (Cork City Council’s Planning Department I assume you mean) – consider the context: the building was applied for in face of numerous adversities. As an office scheme, it was permitted on one point with consideration to the threat of services migration – the lack of appropriate office space in Cork city centre had been driving tenants out of the area to locations in the suburbs and beyond to developments like Cork Airport Business Park, for example. To this end many of the buildings, you refer generally too suffered for unoccupation and demise. As an active location for work and office use, the city was faultering. To curve this dangerous trend, Cork Corporation (at the time) permitted developments such as 21 Lavitts Quay, such as CityQuarter, No.5 & No.6 Lapps Quay etc as a means of attracting back tenants into city centre locations. As a knock on, increased activity in the city centre has generated the area to a more attractive business location position. Smaller unit uptake in areas such as those as South Mall has also increased with smaller, start-up or ‘dependent’ firms taking up these initially taking up these smaller, lower rent units while larger firms shift to more appropriate 3rd Generation office spaces. Indeed unit vacanies in the traditional locations has fluctuated somewhat, but this is a natural part of a reassessed playing field which has now provided a more attractive balance in the Cork office market – and promoted activity in the city centre which has in itself has knock-on effects to other city centre uses (e.g. retail, food services, leisure etc). 21 Lavitts Quay played an important part in the realisation of this strategy. The final planning approval by CCC to Hilltrent (the OCP SPV) clearly notes the Cork office scenario in this case, stating too many tenants have been lost to Cork city centre in light of poor provision and insufficient office types). To have an active city centre you need active uses. Similarly, the residential element at 21 Lavitts Quay (a proposal slated as far back as the late 1990s), was justified on the trend of population migration – city centre residential population had decreased census-on-census 1996 to 2002. The relocation generally benefit suburban and metropolitan Cork as residents, in light of poor supply and poor services, left the city centre. As part of strategy to increase residential activity with city parameters, CCC encourgaed higher density, high quality development to promote the city as an attractive residential alternative. Facts and figures thus far have indicated a high level of investor activity but an increasing owner-occupiership which is now being encouraged by CCC demanding for larger units with more bedrooms – success is being heeded, with further family-sized units being realised at developments like Eglinton Street, Water Street and Paul Kenny’s recent proposal along the Douglas Road seeking permission for 4-bedroom apartment units. 21 Lavitts Quay itself has been successful in attracting many owner-occupiers and has provided generally spacious units. An important consideration of CCC has been to assure constant city centre activity and life – avoiding the ills endured by city’s like Frankfurt-am-Main which sees its city centre effectively ‘close down’ come the weekend when all the businessmen have gone home! To this end, 21 Lavitts Quay has not ignored the city environment, it is part of the puzzle in providing greater diversity and usage to the city centre, and is far from ‘anti-society’.

Also, I don’t understand how you praise Cork as a great city and then criticise it noting ‘any strong city would recognise the necessity to…etc’ ???

@republicofcork wrote:

this is not a matter of opinion as some try to argue [an argument of those less educated in a subject]. the ignorance of respect for the environment and character of cork expresses to us the whole basis of the building.

8. I’m sorry, but it seems here that you are almost implying those without a strict architectural or engineering background possess invalid opinion? I believe the dynamics of a city is beyond the sole reserve of planners, architects and those you note as being ‘less educated in the subject’. Part of the problem in this debate is the lack of greater inclusion – though it is the responsibility, I would accept, that those that participate, verse themselves in the fundamentals of what it is they discuss. Even so, part of the great success of this forum, for example, has been its ability to breach the barriers of exclusivity and open to all those who exhibit an interest or consideration for the built environment. The forum, in my opinion, operates as an excellent learning tool for the broader public to recognise and learn about the value of architecture and how it impacts their lives. Knocking the input of those ‘less educated’ essentially invalidates approximately half the input of those who participate in the forum who do not have any strict professional education in the fields of architecture, planning, design, engineering etc and who exhibit equally warranted opinions in the field of interest. The very reason they participate is to feed their interest, to learn and perhaps inspire – boxing them out of the debate is half the problem when it comes to architectural debate and I don’t accept it.

@republicofcork wrote:

we and our environment are being ignored to serve the needs of the few. this is like the globalisation of our environment,out of our control. those we pay to run our city have ignored us and allowed this disproportioate and decorated postmodern wedding cake, ignorant of even widely accepted architectural devices to add even further destruction to our environment.

9. Those we pay to run our city have more to consider than simply design – though this is a most important facet, there is no argument on that. In deliberating permissions, they must consider long-term strategies, benefit vs disbenefit, socio-economic considerations, finance, aims and goals, planning law, health, regional development trends and so on.Please note Point 7. If pure design was considered time and time again, without any consideration for the other factors necessary of consideration – little progress would ever be made. Design is an important ‘link’ between all such considerations, that’s good design – the ability to think of and above form.

@republicofcork wrote:

the central fact here is that we still havent recognised how individual and specific the environment of cork city is. it still is an very specific environment and even a small amount of study of this environment should allow us to keep the thread of identity that runs through the city. good design comes from the study of the devices of past societies and context….

10. See Points 1,3 and 7.

@republicofcork wrote:

it isnt just a matter of opinion. the recognisable design thread that is is specific to us in cork and it exists in many cities in different ways eg. barcelona, paris, bath, venice …… is a central thread of identity that inspires consideration of the existing fabric and promotes confident and modern development and a strong long term economic climate. the development on lavitts quay erodes this thread that is our identity and erodes our confidence and our prospects to form a considerate and optomistic environment for our children. this building would seem dated, nieve and out of place in an average airport business park.

11. If opinion is invalid in design, explain why some works are championed by architectural peers and others critiqued. I would think opinion is very much a part of design. The fundamental devices that constitute ‘design’ are like the foundations of a building, whatever is built on top of that is subject to the unique interpretations of the individual designer based on his understanding of those principles. This is what gives us variety in architecture and makes for a more dynamic and interesting built environment. Opinion and preference are interlinked in that they are interpretations of a individual’s architectural phenotype – sometimes these are influenced by practice design philosophies, which given some projects for the same firms identifiable or trademark attributes. Furthermore, if it isn’t simply a matter of opinion, there is no need for debate on the fundamentals, but there is – this is consequent of opinion. General ideas can be agreed on i.e. building a skyscraper in the rural countryside looks out of place (unless that’s the aim!!!) – however, the individual twists are those which make architecture so interesting.

@republicofcork wrote:

why Mr O’Callaghan feels we deserve nothing more than this in our great city is beyond understanding.
anger often represents guilt Mr O’Callaghan and you seem to be angry. the little respect you have for us as you negativly exploit our environment is being recognised. bring back the Crawfords who gave us great schools and Art Galleries. we dont want developers that do not respect us, our great city or our environment.

12. Guilt – anger? Well so does undue criticism. Is modern architecture simply not your preference? Are you angry about that? What do you consider good architecture in the modern day. Indeed some wonderful buildings have been provided and with care, in the past. But are we to squander in those days or explore the opportunities that exist in our time? I personally have a penchant for the detail and craft on many historic works, but are we to confine ourselves in one manner of thinking? And the Crawford Art Gallery was not originally built as so.

@republicofcork wrote:

in relation to the merchants quay it is not just that this building created a quayside that was destitute and empty but that the development decanted the interest of many different people from the area and instead of adding to our environment it took from us the vibrancy of a european city where many different property owners have an interest in an area. we lost a grain and atmosphere that is unique and developes over hundreds of years. this kind of environment can be wiped in a few months. the merchants quay anf the lavitts quay development are like a tumour within a city grain that remained unspoilet and in economic and environmental equilibrium over hundreds of years. in recession we should have helped these areas to survive and pull through not left them to the single ideas of one developer. what a loss for us and for our city.

13. When people go to criticise the likes of MQ, the forget one thing – time. MQ, along with many many other shopping centres built not only in Ireland, but throughout Ireland and the world – recognised the preferrable format as being an ‘inward’ looking one. Shop fronts opened out onto internal malls – of course, since that time, we have and continue to learn – that especially in the context of urban retail development, such a format is less desireable say to that of one that utilises its existing, outer environment. Schemes such as those at Mullingar Town Centre or Athlone Town Centre – and even Ballincollig Town Centre – have understood this and are no seeking its implementation. As Frank McDonald said, it is a product of its time – a time when the philosophy toward urban shopping centre design spoke in one predominant direction. It has become part of the ongoing learning process in architectural evolution. To blame OCP for this mentality is shallow and short-sighted – it formed part of a wider ideology. In fact, with Academy Street, OCP are seeking to employ this developed knowledge by utilising street-fronts with active uses along both Academy Street and Faulkner’s Lane – embracing the environment and incoporating into the active streetscape. Not the other way around.

14. As for unspoilt economic and environmental equlibrium – did you consider the economic state exactly? This reasoning is flawed. The city was subject to a variety of economic duldrums, not least Ford, Dunlop and associated industry closures and the mass unemployment which followed. The imposition of such a climate threatened the long term economic and environmental sustainability of Cork. The context is well documented. Merchant’s Quay, for many reasons including those mentioned, had suffered from environmenatl delapidation at the hands of such woes – but also for issues mentioned in earlier points. O’Callaghan Properties and the Heron Property Company were among the few individuals willing to invest in such a risky climate and spur on the recovery of the city centre economic climate in part. Please see earlier posts in this thread documenting this. What a loss our city would have been without it – it has allowed us enjoy a position in which we can comfortably critique design which would otherwise, perhaps, not have been there.

@republicofcork wrote:

there is no recession now and there are no excuses why we have to be served up this childlike development. Mr O’Callaghan please get some better advice and show us that you have the maturity to think of the future of our society as much as the future of your cheque book.

15. Despite criticism, OCP are among the most forward thinking development companies in the region – they are, in my opinion, starting to recognise the same dimensions as many others in the development – the benefit of good design. It seems that many in the development industry are, like the car industry and saftey, recognising the benefits associated with considerate design. Slowly, good design is not seen as an ‘extra cost’ but as a tool in selling the product, so to speak. People/businesses like to be associated with good design – a recent HOK seminar highlighted this fact. Demand is now stating, ‘we want good design’ – the demand is mounting. Furthermore, planning authorities and the public are demanding increasingly higher standards. This is no bad thing, I’m delighted – the bar can never be pushed high enough. There is no argument against better design, that is my own wish and cause and there is no dispute on the wish to see better standards imposed. Is MQ acceptable nowadays given the evolution and learning acquired? No, certainly not – but I don’t knock the purpose and benefit it afforded Cork at the time (on that matter, MQ may be due a revamp – will have to wait and see). As I’ve said, there is no bar high enough in seeking better design and what we have learned must be utilise to push our own standards (and in the context of international design standards) higher and higher. 🙂

Don’t bother answering, republicofcork. He just doesn’t get it…

He doesn’t now and he won’t ever by the sounds of things…….

Devin, whether you agree or disagree with Lex is one thing, but I don’t think you can fault him for laying out his reasoning. If we were all to run off in a huff at the merest hint of criticism, then constructive debate would never happen. And lastly, let’s keep the forum discussion civil.

strange how these Cork based threads always seem to end in bickering and acrimony. It reminds me of those old silent movies where a massive fight breaks out and the 2 people who started it crawl out the bottom and walk away unscathed – Frank and Owen maybe?

@burge_eye wrote:

strange how these Cork based threads always seem to end in bickering and acrimony. It reminds me of those old silent movies where a massive fight breaks out and the 2 people who started it crawl out the bottom and walk away unscathed – Frank and Owen maybe?

Whose bickering? Debate is about airing views and they don’t always converge. Devin and republicofcork are entitled to express their opinion. I would only ask that when people do choose to voice such that they do so in a sense that does not ill-portray their character, sometimes, we all need (myself included) to be reminded of that. Don’t mistake debate for dirt-slinging…if people choose to go that route, that’s their issue but one should always stand their ground.

As for Cork-based threads etc etc – I think you should read through some of the other threads, I think you’ll note that such discussions span a multitude of topics and are not always pleasant. A good example was the back-and-forth between Diaspora and alan_d at one point, but I know understand that it’s all history – maturity dictates one can see past these things. And they have. I will always argue my position, one should always defend themself, and if I don’t like what someone says I will point it out and retort but all the same I don’t hold any ill-concepts of those that challenge me. That’s what makes for good discussion. If persons wish to portray childish behaviour, their actions represent themselves.

@lexington wrote:

I would only ask that when people do choose to voice [an opinion] that they do so in a sense that does not ill-portray their character.

You did your fair share of this when you first joined the forum.

@burge_eye wrote:

strange how these Cork based threads always seem to end in bickering and acrimony. It reminds me of those old silent movies where a massive fight breaks out and the 2 people who started it crawl out the bottom and walk away unscathed – Frank and Owen maybe?

I would like nothing more than the thread stick to A&D, i would hate to see another great forum lost as per..(LADSOCL ??)

@Devin wrote:

You did your fair share of this when you first joined the forum.

@lexington wrote:

….maturity dictates one can see past these things…

…of course for some people it still poses a problem! :rolleyes:

To reply Devin, as I’ve said before, this forum is about debate and learning…you learn a lot and you change with it as you do. I’ve never shyed away from someone else’s perspective, but I’ve learned to not be so hardlined about my own when addressing others and in reading what others have had to say, it teaches you something about how attitudes are more favourably portrayed. Your track record isn’t unbleamished either, only just recently, I think DUCK would agree given your response to his query about 1 off housing. How can you expect persons to more clearly understand your positions when you distance yourself with comments such as that? What I would rather is that instead of to-ing and fro-ing is that you consider republicofcork‘s points made earlier in this thread and then consider them with respect to the points I made in response and then offer your own deliberation – again noting the issues raised by both sides – that would be far more interesting that cheap-whipping and would do the debate, the thread and your position a great deal of service…so without the need to quip back, please, engage in the discussion – share your perspective on the issues under discussion…otherwise there was little point in offering any comments on this thread in the first place. I’m much more interested to hear what you have to say in active debate.

…..Going off track.

Post 34 by republicofcork is one of the best contributions ever on Cork on the site. You can’t keep calling black white. As republicofcork carefully explained, why No. 21 Lavitt’s Quay is wrong is not a matter of opinion. Writing a 4,000 word reply does not validate your reply. You are prolonging a debate when there is none.

Defending No. 21 Lavitt’s Quay on the basis that it hides a multi-storey carpark is the last straw. Stockholm is demolishing its multi-storey carparks. The cark park is irrelevant – it could be gone in 5 or 10 years. Even if it weren’t, it has no relevance to the ridiculous inapprpriateness of the below building.

Shield your eyes, people

@Devin wrote:

&#8230]

@lexington wrote:

How is that the last straw? The fact is, at the time of the proposal, the car-park is in existence and under the management of Cork City Council. Timeframe for site development, subject to planning, is at the discretion of the property owner. Furthermore, please address the context of the overall quayside development plan and what would you alternatively propose? Comments regarding its standing nature is like commenting on a proposal half-way through construction without consideration for the empirical agenda. How would a lower rise building affect the visual depth of the quayside? Do you not concede that it would look woefully more disproportionate? How would such structures address the North Wall of the Opera House? Surely the prominency of the ugly facade would continue to dominate?

And the number of words was appropriate to the lengthy post first initiated and with respect to the comments I sought to make. The points made by republicofcork are valid opinion but factually flawed as well. As for prolonging the debate – the very fact you disagree with me means it still remains. The explanation of ‘opinion being invalid’ was contradictory – were it so, your opinion would be invalid equally.

:rolleyes:

Well that was my reply, but frankly some people are so fixed they’ll never be able to see another side…time to move on…

…and Devin I could argue with you all day, but I doubt it would result in any mutual benefit. We’ll agree to disagree on this one.

What’s your opinion on the Cobh Cathedral thread Lex? You usually have an opinion on all things Cork 🙂

Any of the rest of you Cork dudes have an opinion. What’s the opinion on the streets down there?

Personally I think it would be terrible if this National Treasure was damaged.

@anto wrote:

What’s your opinion on the Cobh Cathedral thread Lex? You usually have an opinion on all things Cork 🙂

Any of the rest of you Cork dudes have an opinion. What’s the opinion on the streets down there?

Personally I think it would be terrible if this National Treasure was damaged.

Well like I said at the start of the thread – I can’t understand the logic behind tampering with something that is not only beautiful as it is, but holds such important historic value for the sake of something rather inessential. See -> https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=41225&postcount=6

My apologies!

My sentiments exactly
🙂

@lexington wrote:

…of course for some people it still poses a problem! :rolleyes:

Indiscriminate cheerleading will always be a problem.

@lexington wrote:

…To reply Devin, as I’ve said before, this forum is about debate and learning…

Learning to be concise would be a start, like architecture debate is about quality and not quantity] you learn a lot and you change with it as you do. I’ve never shyed away from someone else’s perspective, but I’ve learned to not be so hardlined about my own when addressing others and in reading what others have had to say, it teaches you something about how attitudes are more favourably portrayed. Your track record isn’t unbleamished either, only just recently – again noting the issues raised by both sides – that would be far more interesting that cheap-whipping and would do the debate, [/QUOTE]

https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=2134&page=37

Would you please at least leave your posts intact as opposed to editing them 5 months later.

@burge_eye wrote:

strange how these Cork based threads always seem to end in bickering and acrimony. It reminds me of those old silent movies where a massive fight breaks out and the 2 people who started it crawl out the bottom and walk away unscathed – Frank and Owen maybe?

A good observation but analysing the style of langauge below it is not hard to see why.

@lexington wrote:

…of course for some people it still poses a problem! :rolleyes:

Indiscriminate cheerleading will always be a problem.

@lexington wrote:

…To reply Devin, as I’ve said before, this forum is about debate and learning…

Learning to be concise would be a start, like architecture debate is about quality and not quantity] you learn a lot and you change with it as you do. I’ve never shyed away from someone else’s perspective, but I’ve learned to not be so hardlined about my own when addressing others and in reading what others have had to say, it teaches you something about how attitudes are more favourably portrayed. Your track record isn’t unbleamished either, only just recently – again noting the issues raised by both sides – that would be far more interesting that cheap-whipping and would do the debate, [/QUOTE]

https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=2134&page=37

Would you please at least leave your posts intact as opposed to editing them 5 months later.

@Thomond Park wrote:

A good observation but analysing the style of langauge below it is not hard to see why.

Indiscriminate cheerleading will always be a problem.

Learning to be concise would be a start, like architecture debate is about quality and not quantity]https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=2134&page=37[/url]

Would you please at least leave your posts intact as opposed to editing them 5 months later.

Thomond Park,

rather than adequately respond to the topics at heart, as you said was your original intention, I see you have taken the route which allows you get a nice dig in at myself – I’m sure you’ve been itching for an excuse to do so. I’m still trying to figure you out sir, as you vary wildly from making some excellent and well-received contributions – even with respect to Cork issues and with which I very genuinely endorse, like that of the Pedestrian Bridges of Cork thread…

@lexington wrote:

This thread is based on an idea put forward by Thomond Park – and I think it’s a great one. It would be nice hear to discuss the many pedestrian bridges that traverse the Lee as well as others, such as the so-called ‘Pink Link’ bridge which crossed the N8 near Glanmire – all our worthy of a mention.

Most notably, bridges such as the wonderful Daly’s “Shakey” Bridge and Mardyke Pedestrian Bridge spring to mind – but their are many more from which to discuss. I’ll have some images up soon – but all contributions are greatfully received.

…to snide comments such as the guff in the press thread:

@Thomond Park wrote:

Bollox I asked to see a copy of this more than 12 hours ago,

I’ve seen a million commercially generated images and all I’m asking for is one scanned image and this proves impossible.

If I was landlord I’d set a deadline before closing a certain free space.

or

@Thomond Park wrote:

But the lesson has got to be learned about abusing groups of people, some of the discussion in relation to old age pensions and childrens allowance being removed demeans everyone.

Your critiques of me (whether direct or indirect) and the Cork threads are interestingly contradicted by such posts you have made on Boards.ie – like below:

@Thomond Pk wrote:

The look at the state of Cork thread like, is one of the greatest acheivments in on-line discussion in the history of Irish web discussion, I know because I made significant contributions to a rival thread that now sits at 171,000 views.

The look at the state of Cork like thread was an amazing mish-mash of discussion with everything from conservation, development, architecture, street layout, traffic, airports discussed. Where it fell down was that certain contributors were a little eager to see projects gain planning consent quickly and without comment from third parties, some individuals although not many went a little far in their criticism of particular groups and even individuals. I am proud to say that I amongst others challenged these individuals and had remarks withdrawn voluntarily or simply agreed to disagree. The only annoying part about it is that the thread would take about five hours to read and that the v-bulletin software doesn’t lead to specific pages in the search function.

Even from the private messages you have sent me in the past – your position seems conflicting at times.

In trying to understand your bitterness, I have assessed a number of considerations which may justify your position – some sensical, others seem a little far fetched. Since your apparent ‘turn’ on me and the Cork threads (well at least the 2 that concern development) – I have been monitoring your input and comments, on so many occassions with which I could have easily picked you up on – like the comments quoted above, I have not ~ and most certainly, this is not the thread to do so.

You have singled out particular comments made by me (without consideration for the larger context in which they were posted) and failed to identify the tones of other comments made in response to my input – which to say the least, were not exactly unbiased or positive in tone. However, that is another issue on which I tried to leave it not confrontational (I refer to my last comments in my last reply to Devin). I would like to think I can amend some of the comments I may have made which he found offensive, and likewise.

Thomond Park – you seem to have either spent a lot of time researching comments I’ve made by either trawling through a thread you yourself commented takes forever to do so – either that, or I conclude that you’ve harboured it for the right opportunity. With reference to that particular post you highlight, that concerned a comment I made stating a quite genuine question whether or not people in anti-highrise communities would object to a church of equal or greater height (as a comparitive to other building heights) were it proposed. I did, at the time of those inaccurate articles (articles since proven inaccurate and false) alter that post until such a time that I could review the comments apparently made on the subject thread and so that I could investigate the claims – I did write a rebuttal and proof of the inaccuracy of the article claims – which took even defensive responses such as those made by Diaspora and quotes not even on this site at all and twisted them to attack the site (as a whole). For the comment you highlight, I did take full responsibility – but at any stage, it was never meant as a dig to the group, it was a genuine query (take that as you will). I believe a great deal of the rebuttal I posted was in the end adopted by Paul Clerkin and posted here -> https://archiseek.com/cork.html as part of his defensive of the site. And quite rightly. If this is the issue with which you have a problem – I’d be curious to know.

Furthermore, Thomond Park – in my capacity, I have tried to expand my contributions beyond development threads. Development is my area of understanding – but this site is very much a learning tool and I am greatful for what I have learned since my participation, I have tried to translate that learning more and more into a number of articles I have written for publications beyond this website. Furthermore, I have toned down my own hardline stance (which was partially initial ignorance to be blunt) and generally resort to making news posts rather than comments – you yourself have commented on the fact that such comments do not appear so much on threads like the Cork threads:

@Thomond Park wrote:

…some of the discussion in relation to old age pensions and childrens allowance being removed demeans everyone. It has stopped over recent months and the timing of the article surprised me…….

Furthermore, I have tried to push more architectural awareness into the development threads –

some recent examples
https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=43610&postcount=1133
https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=43223&postcount=1084
https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=43515&postcount=1122

although I do recognise they predominantly centre on development (which was represented by Paul Clerkin‘s recent name change of the latest thread). For my own part, I try generally in other threads I contribute to keep it more focused in line with architectural issues – but my discipline is not rooted in pure architecture and I comment generally on my area of understanding which is beyond this. That said, my interest in architecture is an increasingly developing one – and the reason I became interested and by extension involved in these forums was based on my interest of the subject. I’m still learning and have much further to go, I know that, whether concerning the content of my posts, the way in which I post them or my insight into various topics architectural or so related.

Rather than continue on pointing fingers and backlashing – I don’t wish to protract this discussion on this thread any further. You have made your points, I have responded – if you do have issues with me and you feel the need to air them – by all means contact me whether through PM or e-mail. You can let it rip there and I will listen. I don’t understand why you would dilute your good input with the need to dig me or my opinions in a non-constructive manner – you critique my comments on a topic and yet don’t add any yourself to the topic matter, why is that? Are you above it? Curious. You can be such a great contributor let down by a very strange sense of petty behaviour – I’m no dear myself, especially on first beginning to partake in Archiseek.com – but I am aware and trying to improve. I do not initiate specific targetting of users on these forums (if you wish to point out my early issues with An Taisce – may I point out that on agreement with you (I believe) I do not make damaging references to the organisation anymore]https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=15190&postcount=1[/url]

Sincerely, and quite genuinely,

Lex

nul

@Devin wrote:

…..Going off track.

Post 34 by republicofcork is one of the best contributions ever on Cork on the site. You can’t keep calling black white. As republicofcork carefully explained, why No. 21 Lavitt’s Quay is wrong is not a matter of opinion. Writing a 4,000 word reply does not validate your reply. You are prolonging a debate when there is none.

Defending No. 21 Lavitt’s Quay on the basis that it hides a multi-storey carpark is the last straw. Stockholm is demolishing its multi-storey carparks. The cark park is irrelevant – it could be gone in 5 or 10 years. Even if it weren’t, it has no relevance to the ridiculous inapprpriateness of the below building.

Shield your eyes, people

I have to say, I can’t see how anyone could defend this. I was in Cork last week and saw it in the flesh. I took the time to read the above (lengthy!) posts but they don’t tally with what I saw. It would be foolish to think that the architects made a considered and informed decision to adhere to existing conditions and hierarchy. This is pure ‘get ’em in ‘ developer driven crap. The curved facade is not a thought-out attempt to give emphasis to the the laneway. It comes from the ‘lets throw a curve on the corner, what?’ school of design. The economic argument always makes me laugh (especially re: liffey valley), often you hear it on the radio when people that raise legitimate questions about a proposal are tarred as ‘anti-development’. A proposed project may provide a load of construction and post-construction jobs, it may provide much needed facilities and it may also be supported by 80% of the local population but if it means catastrophically destroying the very fabric of a city, town or village then sometimes, all of the above shouldn’t be enough to get it built (extreme example, I know).

O’Callaghan Properties are there to make money, their architects will give them what they wan’t. Maybe planning authorities should employ people with both planning and architectural expertise during the planning process, I would like to see the architects try to justify No. 21 Lavitt’s Quay at a pre-planning meeting to not just planners, but also other architects!

With reference to some of the recent contributions here, I remember commenting before that there is occasionally an air of bitchiness and personal snideness which infects some of the threads in Archiseek. What is really shitty is that it makes everyone else bitchy and detracts from the objectivity of the arguments presented. I know this from first hand experience. I have to say that having followed a few web fora, this problem appears to be particularly pronounced on Archiseek. Could the general atmosphere not be improved? This is just an observation.

Oh well, I suppose I should get the hell out of here before I feel a blade on the back of my neck.

the url for his latest book is

http://chaosatthecrossroads.com

Docklands apartment scheme wins top architecture award
From:ireland.com
Tuesday, 27th March, 2007

Clarion Quay, a Dublin Docklands development of 186 apartments – 37 of which are “social and affordable” homes – has won the latest Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland (RIAI) Silver Medal for Housing, for the years 2002-2003.

Architects Gerry Cahill, Michael McGarry and Derek Tynan from Urban Projects, who designed the scheme, were presented with the medal by Minister for the Environment Dick Roche at the National Housing Conference dinner last night. The jury hailed Clarion Quay as an excellent example of integrated urban design that provided for a sustainable community.

It also “fully maximised” the natural features of the site on North Wall Quay, including views to the River Liffey.

The Clarion Quay scheme, which includes shops at street level, is flanked by an urban space that links the Liffey to Mayor Square. Laid out around a series of private landscaped gardens, it has a wide variety of apartment types, including penthouses.

“The success of the project is greatly assisted by the handling of the central open space area which, although accessible to all residents and clearly well used, shows little sign of wear and tear,” said architect Gus Cummins, who chaired the assessment panel.

Speaking on behalf of Urban Projects, Derek Tynan said they had set out with “the proposition that we should not only design for people to live in the city but also to live well in the city”.

Urban Projects is an association formed by Gerry Cahill Architects, McGarry Ní Éanaigh and Derek Tynan Architects (now called DTA), which previously won the RIAI Silver Medal for the Printworks, one of the earlier residential schemes in Temple Bar.

Howley Harrington Architects were highly commended for their high-density social housing scheme at Balgaddy, Clondalkin, which was commissioned by South Dublin County Council. Its south-facing crescent creates a distinctive place as a focus for the area.

According to the citation, this scheme of 83 houses and apartments “sets down a marker in an area that, in common with many other suburban areas, has in the past seen more than its fair share of undistinguished housing development”.

Other shortlisted projects were a scheme of 376 social and affordable homes in Cherry Orchard, west Dublin, by O’Mahony Pike Architects, and Coppinger Court in Cork, a mixed use development of 43 apartments, a pub and glass showroom by Magee Creedon Architects.

John Graby, director of the RIAI, said the Silver Medal for Housing – which is now being awarded biennially to coincide with the National Housing Conference, was intended to acknowledge outstanding achievement.

In addition to Mr Cummins the assessment panel included former RIAI president Joan O’Connor and award-winning architect John Meagher.

I don’t think that any other development sums up Frank McDonald’s credo better;

a well deserved award.

The Clarion Quay award got a piece on Six One on Mon. Good on all involved.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0326/6news_av.html?2232466,null,230

A previous thread about problems in Clarion Quay
https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2198
The DDDA said at the time they were investigating how to accommodate playing children in future. Does anyone know what they decided?

That thread surprised me as there is an astroturf pitch on nearby Sherrif Street which would be the envy of most suburban children as a hangout.