carlisle pier shortlist
- This topic has 122 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 22 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
Relax a little Trigger it is still better than Kingstown!!;), I have lived there for 25 years, and I too prefer the proper spelling but as I am a terrible speller myself I find I can never give out about it too much.
I quite like the Libskind design and the Henegen.Peng design. They both seem to give real open public space as part of their proposal. My only problem is that when I was looking at the Libskind design I noticed that one of the buildings within it is called ‘the sail’. For some reason this really bothers me. The only problem with the Henegen.Peng design for me is that it seems to ignore the existance of the seafront road as it makes its link to Moran Park. The Libeskind design seems to be the only one which as really thought about this link in a realistic manner by the use of a bridge. I think, however that the extra building within the Park takes away from the Libskind design a little.
phil, i couldn’t see from the pictures where the libskind provided open public space, have you seen the models? how does public space work out for the libskind design.
Yeah, Notjim I went to look at the models the other day. The pictures don’t give a realistic vision of what the projects look like. I thought, for example, that the Libskind and SOM projects looked quite similar until I saw the models. The Libskind one is made up of a few separate structures with open space in between them, where as the SOM one is a large scale structure with public access to the roof!
The Carlisle Pier competition is a DEVELOPMENT competition as opposed to a purely architectural one. The winning scheme will have to be financially viable while giving an income stream to the harbour authority as well as keeping the public happy – I exclude Richard Boyd Barrett and his mates from ‘the public’ as they wont be happy unless a shrine to marxist ideology is placed on the pier.
Here are a few issues worthy of debate above and beyond the aesthetic ping-pong that this board loves indulging in…
1.
the SOM scheme appears to be twice as dense as the others. Do the supporters of this scheme want to write a blank cheque to the developers? We might get a funky rooftop walkway but it looks like the developers get about 300 apartments which would likely retail for half a mil each – you do the math…2.
has anyone noticed that the Liebeskind scheme extends way beyond the development ‘red line’ and is nearly twice as wide as the other schemes? Remember, the reason for the baths debacle was as a result of the winning scheme ignoring the site boundary hence allowing the losing shemes to threaten legal actions. Also, is it a coincidence that this is the only scheme without a contractor on board? Landmarks are great except when you have to pay for them (Scottish Parliament for eg) and the harbour company need to be really really sure that the scheme can be built for the budget proposed. Finally, can anyone see a ‘diaspora museum’ attracting sufficient numbers to be self financing? Again the harbour company want a viable cultural attraction, not an albatross around their necks.3.
The STW scheme is indeed boring but you can bet your last euro that its eminently ‘buildable’. The development mix seems appropriate also.4.
The HP scheme also has a sensible development mix and is a more attractive building than the STW scheme although i think the design needs some more development. I like the permeability of the scheme – its the only one that allows the pier to remain a pier.just to re-iterate, the Liebeskind and SOM schemes (and to a lesser extent HP’s design) will no doubt appeal visually to the people visiting the exhibition but he decision is not going to be based principally on design. The current public consultation is potentially cosmetic to a large extent as the assessors will be making a decision based on commercial considerations in the main. If Im right its a straight decision between the STW and HP schemes and if all other things are equal the HP design will win out cos its more attractive.
The real world is a harsh place…..
Pragmatist, that is a good point you make about the Diaspora Museum. I too have doubts about its viability. With regards to the public consultation being cosmetic, I am not sure if the outcome would be either of the two you mentioned. Just remember who they originally had to draw up plans!
Are the developers with Libskind not called Heritage Properties?
Phil,
the harbour company didnt have Liebeskind draw up the original plans – heritage properties ‘took a punt’ and made a proposal to the harbour company which ultimately triggered the competition. Heritage have not built anything of this scale before and are best known as the developer of smithfield apartments. At least there is some cetainty that Laing O’Rourke, Pierse and Sisk can deliver the other schemes and are sure to have seriously scrutinised the costs/programmes involved. Heritage cannot be said to have the same capability as the above contractors and if I was on the assessment panel I would be worried about this given that theirs is easily the most complex scheme from a construction point of view.
That’s fair enough Pragmatist. I was under the impression that the board sought after the proposal originally. I stand corrected.
The link below, and the link which follows from it, seems quite relevant to the Carlisle Pier.
I went along to view the entries on Saturday and have a few comments:
1. The so called cultural component of each entry is nearly farcical!! diaspora museum, centre for irish culture and rehousing the maritime museum. In my opinion none of these would attract significant numbers into the developments leaving the private offices and hotel to the money paying customers! (just as the developers would want!!)
2. The scale of the STW and HP entries is far too large and would only serve to split the seafront, destroying the view out over the bay for most of dunlaoghaire.
3. The amount of public spaces in each was dissapointing, the Liebeskind and SOM have integrated good usable spaces into their designs and linked them back to Morans park across Queens Road, ideal for (small) concerts etc.
4. the STW entry was as as innovative as any five story box down the IFSC! time to think outside the box lads!! On this basis I would disagree that some of the entries do not reflect the style of the area. Dunlaoughaire hasnt got any predominant style through it – its a mish mash of bad planning and unimaginative architecture!
Has anyone else visited the exhibition and seen the full presentations? BTW the foreign entries had far superior presentations and models, which may sway the public opinion.
Originally posted by Ocean33
Dunlaoughaire hasnt got any predominant style through it – its a mish mash of bad planning and unimaginative architecture!Although there are some significanly terrible pieces of and unimaginative examples of architecture such as the shopping centre, the town itself is well layed out. There are also some excellent examples of architecture in the town such as:
The original Railway terminal (Presently Restaurant Na Mara), Royal Irish Yacht Club, the original Town Hall building and the extension to the town hall building.
I agree with you that the foreign presentations and models are alot better. At the time that I was there I noticed how few people seemed to be looking at the STW submission.
I stood at the STW model for a while on Saturday and the first word out of the mouths of a lot who passed was ‘boring. In fact one person even apologetically said, “I’m sorry but this is boring!”
Isn’t that some progress for the Country to be able to class that design as boring.
I agree that the STW design is the most muted of the four, and is against the other three ‘boring’.
But if someone proposed that before thye competition I wonder how many people would have said no you can’t build that its boring.
Honest and unambitous would be fairer I think.
Just a question on the SOM proposal. Will the sloped public area on the roof not be extremely dangerous?
I can just see people careering all over this in wet or icy weather. And what about access for the disabled? This would be almost totally inaccessable for a wheelchair bound person. (I know I wouldn’t like to be perched at the high end with bad brakes.)
This was actually my favourite design. I liked the ideas but I don’t know how they will work in reality.The STW was like a shoebox and the internal layout of the apartments and hotel bedrooms looked as if it was an effort to squeeze in as many as possible. They are all box shaped and exactly the same.
Overall I was disappointed that car parking was allowed in the scheme.
For a second when I saw the SOM proposal I thought it was a glorified multi-storey carpark.
I think with the DART so close by they should promote that for access to the centreemf, I was also thinking that. I went to see the exhibition on Saturday when it was blowing a force 9 gale in Dun Laoghaire. I emmedietly started to think about that. It is difficult not to get blown away on the seafront in Dun Laoghaire sometimes as it is, so with people elevated that high in the air they will be completely exposed to the wind no matter what its direction is. A good indication of the force of the wind in Dun Laoghaire at times is the shape of some of the trees on the seafront; in the area around the east pier they have all bent towards the town because of northerly winds over the years.
Technichally speaking, it would have been possible until recently to bring the Dart in to what ever project got the go ahead. However the tunnel from the Railway line to the Carlisle Pier is half blocked now because of strenghtening work. It probably would have been too big an aspect of the project to have been worth it anyway, considering how close the station is.
Just another bad example of what computer are likely to generate as designs. Sort of like radio friendly tunes in music – sometimes computers images are very seductive.
Ah a music head! 🙂
Young architects are often major big into their music, and despite being around architects for a large portion of my life – i am tone deaf – meaning this world of music is something I know nothing about.
Although the Poll is showing Henegen.Peng and Libeskind as clear favourites amongst people who view this site, what do people think is the most likely scheme to get the go ahead? I personally think that realistically speaking the Libeskind design will be chosen. I think this because he is presently, whether we like it or not, a ‘household name’ of architecture. the design brief sets out that the building has to be an “exceptional landmark building of international architectural quality that regenerates and enlivens the waterfront.”
I think that the fact that it aims for the building to be internationally recognised indicates that it will chose an international hard hitter. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying it should win, I am just trying to see exactly what it is that they are looking for. The other way of looking at it is that Henegen.Peng are presently building a strong international reputation and the Harbour Company might decide that it would be a good idea to promote their work. I also realise, as Pragmatist pointed out, that the Libeskind design goes over the specified limit by widening the pier, so is likely to come under scrutiny from the public and other areas. The reality of it though is that which ever project is chosen is likely to be very controversial.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
