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

@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:

@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. 😮

@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.

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.

@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

@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.

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.

@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. 🙂

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?