Carlisle Pier – the Aftermath.
- This topic has 40 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
If the Libeskind entry was developed by a number of architects, with different styles perhaps and decent briefs.
Click: I would like to see a real public design as part of the Libeskind overall masterplan. But also, I think the scale of the narrow streets in the H/P scheme was about right too – much narrower than the boulevards suggested by the Libeskind project, making it go well outside the ‘red line’ too.
http://www.cgarchitect.com/gallery/image_spotlight.asp?galleryID=14209
That is a very simple notion about using a pier, but you get the impression that it could be much more enjoyable for the public as an amenity.
I like the Spanish retail design, very user freindly.
I would hate to see one entry get the pier design on a technicality.
Of course the developer wants to maximise floor area and as a result profit, thats OK once they can do it in a way that fits in well with the harbour and the town.
I would hate to see the judges find one entry best but that becuase it crossed the ‘red line’ rule that it was void.
The quality should be judged on three grounds.
1. Public usable space
2. Form
3. Materials and durability over time.If a design wins on these three criteria red lines are a trivial matter unless a design interfered seriously with an adjoining property.
The more I think about this competition now, and as I said, one needs to reflect a fair bit on something of this scale and significance – the more I am reminded of good public buildings, where the outdoor spaces, and internal organisation of the cultural exhibition spaces, or whatever, are brought into one. A building I have in mind here, is the Frankfurt one, by Richard Meier, where the park and building have a relationship. I just didn’t see anything in the entries presentations, which had that – apart from maybe the SOM entry. But I still think the image of the Spanish gallery above, could work well out there – as retail or cultural.
Hmmmm,
http://www.boxstudio.com/projects/offices/sld022.htm
Libeskind had something like this at the top of his Dispora museum that could have been scraped to be honest.
http://www.boxstudio.com/projects/offices/sld064.htm
Would it work on Carlisle Pier? Dunno. I guess the opera/theatre brief can be a bit too dead in fairness, especially here in Ireland. Funnyly enough, none of the scheme has long narrow medieval pedestrian proportions of space like these ones:
http://www.boxstudio.com/projects/offices/sld067.htm
I am thinking of schemes by Bernard Tschumi, which sort of established a high degree of public accessibility, like the SOM project does, but without facing the wind and all the elements head on.
Future of Carlisle Pier? 🙂
The Grand Canyon image is really good and I can see the link to Liebskinds design, I think it would work in Dunlaoire very well.
The long narrow image ‘Internal Street’ image reminds me of Custom House Plaza albiet narrower and developed on both sides.
Which leads one to think that HP’s could work vey well as it is a much higher spec again.
ABN Amro behind the offices thrown up over Connolly Station, prior to redevelopment it was the sherriff St sorting post office.
Just something I found about Liffey Board walks:
I guess you could call these kinds of projects, high return projects. I dunno what the Spire could be called though.
Bridges and boardwalks thread.
CITY: Dublin (Ireland)
POPULATION: 1.103.400
DEVELOPER: Dublin City Council – City Architects Division
AUTHORS: McGarry Ni Eanaigh Architects, Architects, Michael McGarry, Slobhán Nà Éanaigh
PARTICIPANTS: Muir Associates
PROJECT BEGUN: 1997
START OF WORK: 1999
END OF WORK: 2000
SURFACE AREA: 1.950 m²
COST: 3.000.000 €
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY: Pierse ContractingThe starting point of the present project was the difficulty of making a central thoroughfare parallel to the river and with heavy traffic compatible with the flow of pedestrians who circulated with serious problems due to the high degree of congestion.
The new boardwalk not only solves the previously unresolved conflict between pedestrians and vehicles but has also generated a completely new urban experience in its riverside setting. From a congested thoroughfare, uncomfortable for pedestrians and indifferent to the river, it has gained a space that not only acts as a transit area, but also as an avenue and terrace-square open to the river. A project with a simple, clear concept and appropriate implementation has obtained a pleasant, versatile space for walking and resting, which has enhanced the city experience to an extraordinary degree.
Instead of simply widening the existing pavements along the avenue parallel to the river, the project opted for hanging a light structure over the water to segregate the circulation of pedestrians from the traffic along the road. And so pedestrians can choose one route or the other, but they have the chance to escape the cars and walk in peace, enjoying a totally new relation with the river.
The formal concept of the new boardwalk fully respects the integrity of the old wall of the quay from which it hangs, heightening its nature as a space won back for people beside the river. The correct sizing of the new projecting boardwalk, the wooden benches all along the old wall, the strategic situation of the small kiosks selling hot drinks and the good fortune of the river facade facing south have made it far more than a mere route; it is a versatile space with facilities that make transit compatible with rest by bringing both to a river that thus acquires observers and enthusiasts. The existence of the extended bench, the different levels and the ramps, the viewpoints and the kiosks, favours the diversity of uses on this new pedestrian way, which has sometimes acted as a setting for events organised right by the river. The good connections with the nearby bridges ensure continuity for the itineraries and is also crucial for their use and function, improving the pedestrian routes of the immediate surroundings.
The structural system adopted emphasises the lightness of the boardwalk without any flashy technology and has made it possible to incorporate the technical installations underneath it in a dialogue with the heaviness of the old stone wall, which has been conserved virtually intact. The use of materials such as wood, apart from having a deep relation with the water, brings out the pleasant character of a new avenue gained with respect and creativity for the city.
The determination to make the pedestrian route and general walking conditions better and more amenable along more than half a kilometre to the old Dublin quays and to take advantage of the enormous visual potential of the river for the quality of the city centre are the starting points of the project.
Maybe a slate tower like building, on the pier?
http://www.cgarchitect.com/gallery/image_spotlight.asp?galleryID=18730
In contrast to the earlier very transparent glass one that I earlier linked. The trouble with the Libeskind scheme or any of the entries, is all the finishes and materials etc are the same.
I am worried the end result could be something very bland.
Originally posted by Diaspora
I would hate to see one entry get the pier design on a technicality.
Of course the developer wants to maximise floor area and as a result profit, thats OK once they can do it in a way that fits in well with the harbour and the town.
I would hate to see the judges find one entry best but that becuase it crossed the ‘red line’ rule that it was void.
The quality should be judged on three grounds.
1. Public usable space
2. Form
3. Materials and durability over time.If a design wins on these three criteria red lines are a trivial matter unless a design interfered seriously with an adjoining property.
Hate to burst your bubble diaspora but the red line is not a “trivial matter”.
The Libeskind design has increased the pier footprint by about 50% – this reclaimed land will require a foreshore license. This, in itself, is not a ‘dealbreaker’ although there is a huge risk that the harbour master will not grant this license, leaving the proposed design (and the site) in limbo for another 5-10 years. Do you think that unecessary risk should be taken lightly?
The real potential problem about the red line is that Libeskinds buildings stray onto and colonise the newly reclaimed land and, as such, the scheme potentially requires an amendment to the county development plan. Funnily enough, land which is yet to come into existence hasnt been considered for zoning by our esteemed councillors! Therefore construction on this newly minted real estate requires a variation of the current development plan……
concept architecture is all well and good but unfortunately (for Libeskind, Gehry, Hadid et al) all theory must ‘degenerate’ into reality at some point if anything is going to get built on Carlisle Pier…..
ignoring the brief and lacing competition entries with layers of tenous ‘meaning’ has been a brilliant competition winning strategy for Libeskind in the past. However, anyone following the WTC design debate will be aware that these ‘hooks’ which capture public imagination (or play on peoples emotions) usually turn out to be unsustainable, unbuildable or both……
see link to article for a solid rebuff to the developing cult of “STARCHITECTURE”
http://www.gsd.harvard.edu/research/publications/hdm/current/19_kingwell.pdf
Perhaps Im being overly cynical but the Emperor of Diaspora looks to be increasingly exposed down in windswept Dun Laoghaire.
Quote “, as such, the scheme potentially requires an amendment to the county development plan.”
A good time to be looking for an amendment to the development plan, the world and his wife are seeking those at the moment.
You are however right on the foreshore licence, but I’m sure that the Department of the Marine would clarify that for the redevelopment board.
The point I was making is that architecture is the most important aspect of this project. I said that I would hate to see a particular entry be awarded this commission because one or more of the other entries was not fully compliant on non-architectural grounds.
What if all four were ruled technically deficient and the original 1999 STW boat proposal were built.
It is obvious you don’t like Liebskind and you have painted a good doomsday vista. But if your view were taken by the Harbour board why were the current four entries shortlisted?
Diaspora, here are the assessment criteria….
The four short-listed proposals will be evaluated by an Assessment Panel using the following criteria:
Quality of architectural design; Compliance with the zoning requirements for the Pier; Benefit to the community from the proposed cultural attraction; Nature and extent of public access to the redeveloped Pier; Timescale for the completion of the redevelopment; Financial return to the Harbour Company.
These are the criteria upon which the entrants based their designs. As you can see, ‘Architectural Design’ is only one of SIX headings for judging the competition and your guess is as good as mine as to what weighting each heading is given.
As I understand it you are saying that Architecture should be the most important criteria…..your opinion, fair enough….
Would you agree with me that if a scheme fails to provide a financially viable cultural attraction and fails to provide a financial return to the harbour company (but is nice to look at and has lots of open space) then it should not win ?
This is the crux of my argument….Architecture is important but sensible development needs to win out…
I agree with you that a financially secure cultural attraction is essential. I couldn’t care less how much money it makes or loses once it delivers a decent footfall and is kept open. I think the childrens science museum proposed for Dublin 8 would be a more viable runner than a Dispora museum.
Regarding the financial aspect through ground rent or equity shares payable to the redevelopment board, that would be a major consideration. But I suggest that once a target rate of return is met figures in excess of that shouldn’t sway the result.
Finally public amenity or the architectural creation of a substantial civic space is really what this project is all about in my opinion.
I am just worried that a situation like the NTL tender for cablelink might develop where only the cash will be assessed. Although they got well and truely stung all the same.
The biggest problems in DLR right now are far, far away from Dun Laoghaire itself, in a place they helped to create called Sandyford. 🙂 They have gone on such a mad rush to build everything out there, that I am unsurprised how little there is now left to spread around sites like Carlisle Pier, except for ‘young bachelor stud’ porsche driving owner apartments.
Yes, Dun Laoghaire may be a nice place to ‘live’ etc, and Sandyford might be a cool place to work for a high tech company. But it is this zoning and separation of functions into distinct areas, which makes modern cities so terrible I think. Yeah, you might eventually be able to walk up the SOM building in Carlisle Pier, but I would much rather be able to walk around a Sandyford, or someplace, without having to be constantly monitored with security cameras and dudes with uniforms. It is a strange new world we are making for ourselves.
Quote “The biggest problems in DLR right now are far, far away from Dun Laoghaire itself, in a place they helped to create called Sandyford”
I agree entirely.
But I think that hi-spec apartments in the Carlisle pier redevelopment would be a good thing. A high leisure component would also be a good thing, something like an Irish version of the Ministry of Sound would be even better.
But back to your porsche driving programmer who works for microsoft, if said programmer loses his licence for some reason he is in real trouble. The biggest problem with Dunlaoire is that it is not well served by public transport. Except for the DART which primarily serves the City Centre.
Hopefully this development will reinstate Dunlaoire as a serious leisure district in Dublin.
Just found this project over at: http://urban.cccb.org/
Again, I would have to ask the question, what strategic significance does Carlisle Pier have? Or more to the point, what strategic significance could other locations around the capital have some day?
Malmö, Sweden’s third city, has historically been an industrial centre with a lower middle-class population. It now has more immigrants than any other city in Sweden. With the economic decline of the 1980s, when many of its big industries closed down, Malmö, in the south of the country, began a period of large-scale investment in policies aiming at urban regeneration and offering a better quality of life to its citizens. In 1995, a town-planning project aimed to bring about the regional integration of the city and to act as the vehicle of its future growth. The inauguration, in 1997, of a university zone in the city centre, connected to the port and railway station, was the start of a process of urban dynamism and the acquisition of a progressively higher cultural profile. In 2000, the opening of a new bridge connecting the city with Copenhagen represented a new geographic positioning that brought other opportunities for communication and work, notably stimulating the city’s future expectations in the process and meaning that the initiative that had begun in strategic planning would continue.
In 1997, the city acquired seafront land that was mainly in disuse. Artificially recovered from the sea between 1948 and 1987, this land offered the opportunity to imagine a new maritime façade for the city in an area that is crucial for the revitalisation of the city centre and for developing a new role on the regional scale.
Another site I tend to like is this one:
With plenty of schemes all over the globe.
Im a BA student doing a project on the proposals for Carlisle Pier. I found some of your posts very interesting but I was wondering if any of you had any opinions on the use of public space in the proposed developments.
public space…i don’t know. if i was such a porsche driving individual and not using my horse and cart i wouldn’t want joe public shouting/pissing/breaking in distance from my new hi-tech pad.
Originally posted by PatO’C
Im a BA student doing a project on the proposals for Carlisle Pier. I found some of your posts very interesting but I was wondering if any of you had any opinions on the use of public space in the proposed developments.Pat, just read this, it is the opposite to the concept of good exterior, open public space, Stillogan. You can extrapolate from there almost everything that is wrong about attitudes to open public space in this country I think, and begin to define how to improve things at all. I don’t think it is about searching out good open public spaces here in Ireland, as so much, just looking around you everyday and seeing the shere non existence of good open public space, which hasn’t been butchered to death by road planners etc, etc.
The best simple reference on this is Fluid Spaces published by UCD, available at 8 Merrion Sq in Dublin.
One of the best places I know, which explains this and you can experience it physically is Stillorgan centre and junction. It is just off the main Stillorgan dual carriageway and Kilmacud Road Upper comes into the junction, along with a couple of ‘overflows’ from the Stillorglan dual carriageway.
There is a couple of pubs, restaurants, banks, shops, cinema, shopping mall, surface car parking, Omni PLEX and so on. But the place is entirely useless because pedestrian were not anywhere considered in the whole equation. It is ALL 100 car in that case, how to drive your car, get out of it and shop.
It is easy to talk about density and ‘mothers walking’ to shops etc, but, it still doesn’t work when you have a mess of traffic like that. It is one of the few places I know in Dublin city, where the cars literally ‘keep driving’ even though the ‘green man’ is turned on!!!!! and old ladies are tried to cross the road.
It is just so much hassle to get from the Omni PLEX to the cinema, to the shopping mall!!! Across all the lanes and traffic going in all directions.
You see most of the Carlisle schems I think were about actually bringing people by cars onto the pier in terms of arrival. Parking the car, then going to some nice cultural experience, cafe, shopping area, hotel or otherwise. What was nice, was the way in which people could do this, that is, without having to go through the kind of hell that is Stillogan town centre.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
