Cathedrals of Commerce
December 29, 2003 at 3:57 pm #706709
It occurs to me that the fabric of Dublin city was invaded back in the 1960s by the global trend toward a world economy, and the expansion of Dublin as a city of international commerce, and business centres. These often ugly looking houses of commerce were viewed with discust by many at the time, and it was felt that Dublin needed to preserve its heritage – not lean over to just accomodate more and more glass and concrete boxes.
Now compare that to today, where the notion of commerce and global economics has made Dublin a much more strategic place to both live and work from. We have embraced the whole notion of business and a new age of prosperity. New buildings are no longer viewed with discust as ugly houses of commerce, but are rather seen as signs of economic prosperity and development. What I would like to know, is how that change did come about. How to the people who remember the initial wave of palaces of commerce feel about things nowadays.
There is an important time element in this kind of discussion. Were the angry youngsters back in the sixties merely rebelling against something for the sake of it – were they really as concerned as they thought they were – about the historic architecture of Dublin? Has the attitude of the younger people changed nowadays, where they see BIG EURO signs on anything gaudy and large, made of glass and steel? I think that this debate could include a wide variety of points of view and could make an interesting contrast – houses of commerce, in the 1960s versus the present in Ireland’s cities.
Is there a strong architecture that can come from such a brief? Are some of the current attempts one sees around Ireland at the moment, just shallow attempts, which will age poorly? Have the large scale commercial structures dotted around the urban fabric contributed anything? It just strikes me in general that Dublin is very much driven in its development by commercial type of development – there is precious little mention about projects just for the city itself.
I also understand that the scale of this development is unprecedented for Dublin city’s history. The building in the 1960s wasn’t quite in the same league. I was just wondering if any people who lived through the last building effort would care to make any comments.
December 29, 2003 at 5:20 pm #738891
The reference to Cathedrals of Commerce first surfaced in Short’s Urban Reader in the early 1990’s. It referred to buildings that were built to a specification that glorified their creators, i.e. cost was secondary to the impression of the buildings.
It probably could have been written in 1929 with the building of both the Chrystler Building and Empire State in New York.
The closest proposal to this I have seen for Dublin was Dermot Desmond’s Eco-Sphere.
When is Dublin going to see a developer that is prepared to leave a genuine ‘Landmark’ Building?
Regardless of the short term costs. i.e. the sums done over 25+years vs 7-8 years?
December 29, 2003 at 7:00 pm #738892
Would I be very wrong in thinking, that during our first date with the destiny of globalisation – i.e. fabulous looking commercial palaces that could be anywhere in the world – that we did not find it so easy to swallow. Basically modern Architecture got a very bad rep.
But now we seem to have embraced this global architecture type of commercial style, rather like some old man clutching onto a blanket. I.e. The more cathedrals of commerce we can build, the less likely our prosperity is going to escape? I seems to be like a total U-turn to the 1960s reaction. Have we in fact changed that much in so short a space of time?
I mean, Archiseek board is one of the places that loves to just slate the ‘Irish-ness’ and sense of one’s own identity, which people held so dear in the 1960s. But have we lost a large portion of our identity, and need to joke about it now, just to make ourselves feel better about it? Obviously Spain cannot go back to the days of Columbus, but in its architecture, spaces and cities nowadays, you still do get some sense of history, or of place.
December 29, 2003 at 7:06 pm #738893
Not at all clutching a blanket,
More weighing up the architectural merits more. What gave commercial architecture a bad name was
O’Connell Bridge House
The IDA at Wilton Place
7-9 Sth Leinster St at a lower height
What might redeem it is a quality tall structure.
Georges Quay isn’t bad of it’s type but it is not a viable front runner such as an Eco-Spere or similar.
Something with a wow factor and more importantly a building a roof top restuarant so it can be accessed by the public
December 29, 2003 at 7:48 pm #738894shaunParticipant
I would have thought that Dublin suffered very little (architecturally) from the commercial evolutions of the 60’s and 70’s.
Compared with cities of similar size in the UK or mainland Europe commercial developement in Dublin then was minimal.
Look at the roads network in Dublin even now,
anyone driving along the Rock road every morning into town still passes Count John MacCormack’s house more than 100 years later. Not that much has changed.
Dublin is still a very intact Victorian city.
December 29, 2003 at 8:07 pm #738895
Comparison with the Continent and most of the UK is what makes the destruction of particular streetscapes all the more tragic.
As with the overseas locations it was easy to blame the Second World War for the destruction. Excluding Paris and Edinburgh few other cities in Europe were as unscathed
Here it was CJ & co destroying anything that might have had any connection with pre 1921 origin.
What replaced the older buildings is the real disgrace. What modern architecture needs in this city are a few Landmark buildings of real quality.
The only really decent modern office building I can think of is Hardwicke House on Upper Hatch St. But it is again quite a low building.
Georges Quay is more of a contribution to the problem than the solution. I hope that the U2 tower works as well in practice as on paper.
December 31, 2003 at 7:17 pm #738896
December 31, 2003 at 9:26 pm #738897
Both Beruit and Belfast have been quiet for a while now.
Once the Monte Carlo of the East Med it suffered a few bad years before being rebuilt. The process was overseen by a guy from Killiney.
A cathedral to peace but not yet a Cathedral of Commerce.
December 31, 2003 at 9:57 pm #738898
Just playing around with something, probably influenced by the article! ;-0
January 3, 2004 at 4:21 pm #738899
Outdoor shopping, with apartments overhead.
January 4, 2004 at 4:52 pm #738900
January 4, 2004 at 8:54 pm #738901
Not really what the general definition of cathedral of commerce refers to I think it was meant more to describe Corporate office Headquarters such as the Chrystler building in New York or the Deutche Bank towers in Frankfurt.
Symbols of Corporations having reached giant proportiones or speculative developments providing office space for overseas firms in major corporate centres.
The photo of Time Square in New York is a tragedy I would commit suicide or at least emmigrate if Dublin suffered a similar vista. What makes it even more tragic the Quality of the tapered building in the background, which looks stunning in 1920’s B&W photo’s
January 5, 2004 at 9:49 am #738902GregFParticipant
What gave corporate architecture a bad name in the past here was the way the ‘Cathedrals of Commerce’ bombastically and wrongly intruded the old and historic parts of Dublin city……ie to mention the old regulars of the Bank on Baggot Street, the ESB on Fitzwilliam Street etc….etc…
Attitudes changed in the 80’s here I suppose with the arrival of Post Modernism and an emerging respect of our past architecture ie, The pedestrianisation of Grafton Street and the like…. etc.
But this anti 60’s ‘Cathedrals of Commerce’ hang up carries on today where new contemporary develpments face huge hurdles even on brownfield sites.
January 5, 2004 at 10:27 am #738903
I agree that bad commercial development was it’s own worst enemy in Dublin. There is still a major problem of perception with many commercial developments.
But with the possible exception of the Carrolls Building or the badly sited Banks Of Ireland (Central and BOI) were any office buildings developed as Cathedrals of Commerce?
Or were too many corners cut to trim construction budgets?
January 5, 2004 at 1:04 pm #738904
Another young generation will have something to aspire to Good web site about space travel etc – what a way to start 2004.
Here is an article about problems facing California with large consumer boxes dotting the place all over USA. 230,000 square feet is around 16,000 sq metres roughly I think. Anyone got a conversion? In America, the problem isn’t so much to do with exploiting old historical areas, as Greg mentions, but in trying to make some order out of the low rise sprawl. One thing you can say about the Neon Chinesse city images, was how dense they actually are.
January 5, 2004 at 2:24 pm #738905
I am just wondering, does this thread stir up any thoughts about commercial building and geography, landscape, favourite places to live etc, etc, etc.
Cardinal made some interesting observations about America geographically.
January 15, 2004 at 2:20 pm #738906
I agree Brian well designed ‘Cathedral of Commerce’ spec buildings are the best defence against clusters of groundscrapers.
January 15, 2004 at 4:50 pm #738907
With all this new technology of high-speed Internet and more advanced phone services, there has been a proliferation of bigger and more frequent switching pedestals, and this new Trafalgar Pole has eliminated that clutter from the subdivisions where it is being applied.
January 16, 2004 at 12:21 pm #738908
“I would love to see a refreshing change”
Quote of the Year
January 16, 2004 at 10:03 pm #738909
I will just link a couple of good images here;
Sort of the inspiration for something I am doing at the moment.
January 16, 2004 at 10:18 pm #738910
Is the format similar to age of empires or is it slower or faster?
January 16, 2004 at 10:24 pm #738911
One must never forget the third skin, particularly when design involves multi-layered solutions.
January 16, 2004 at 10:27 pm #738912
AOE would be axonometric I think in architecture speak. I think, but that might have advanced with most recent editions. Whereas the total war formula is based upon landscape models the likes of which you might normally see in a Flight simulator game.
The little people are only 2D card board cut outs, and perform very limited repetitive 5 frame sequence actions like throw spears or riding horses etc. But there is so many of them on the screen at once, that things have to be made pretty simple.
Aside from that, each type of unit or brigade behaves a little differently, some get scared and run off quicker etc. There was a series on the BBC where they televised people re-enacting great battles – was great fun.
The LOTR battles for middle earth were created using a similar idea. The problem that they found using AI warriors in LOTRs was, that if the soldier or ORK couldn’t find an opponent in the melee, he simply would just run off into the landscape and never return. But you don’t notice it in the film.
Here are lots more images.
A couple of more ones I happen to love;
A whole load of Rome ones here;
Couple of medieval ones here.
Battle scenes from Shogun.
January 22, 2004 at 2:25 pm #738913
Shanghai in the news
January 22, 2004 at 2:33 pm #738914
That is a fantastic Skyline,
The Chinese have really taken to prestige architecture in recent years, I suppose to put one over on their Hong Kong dominion.
The Maglev train system is interesting too, 30kms, 267mph for $1.2bn. That is real strategic investment.
The Chinese are a scary bunch 7.9% growth last year in the year of a SARS epidemic that shut most of Asia for three months. It can’t all be based on cheap labour.
Shanghai really is the Skyline to watch over the next few years.
January 22, 2004 at 3:14 pm #738915
I think you are pretty much on the mark there. However, they all seem to agree that the Olympics budget got totally out of control.
I mean, OVER spending.
Barcelona/Sydney done it without going to town money-wise.
January 22, 2004 at 3:20 pm #738916
The Olympics are in Bejing I think, so that I presume will be a real politburo jobby no expense spared on those egos.
It will be the first time anyone has lost the plot with an Olympics since Montreal in 1976, I think the canadians are still paying interest on that one.
Thats whats great about Shanghai it’s all private and mostly foreign money, with the government putting in strategic pieces of infrastructure such as airports and the Maglev.
A bit like Smithfield build a Plaza and let the private sector do the rest. If the Luas was only a Metro that did 150mph to the airport
January 22, 2004 at 3:33 pm #738917
I was watching Rocky III last night and realised suddenly that all that Cold War stuff is sadly missing from sporting events these times.
I don’t know if you have ever seen movies like ‘Steve Prefontaine’ and such, where the American used sport as a means to ‘take on’ the different political types around the globe.
Same even back in Nazi Germany. I mean, in a way all the athletes drug taking etc, Sinead De Brun, was created out of the cold war 1970/80’s ideas of super human commies and Americans like Sylvester Stallone and that blonde Russian guy that the women always go wild after.
(Yeah the terrible actor too)
But the current thing now, where USA have no big contenders – doesn’t make for the best Olympic games.
January 22, 2004 at 3:47 pm #738918
An interesting post about chaos theorey here;
January 22, 2004 at 9:12 pm #738919
How to develop dockland areas capable of siting Cathedrals of Commerce with ease
First posted by GarethAce
We have a lot to learn from both New York and Shanghai both in terms of architecture and infrastructure 😉
January 23, 2004 at 10:41 am #738920AnonymousInactive
Garethace and Diaspora, you guys should go and see the film ‘Lost in Translation’. Great views of the Tokyo Skyline and the urban imagery in general in it is great.
January 23, 2004 at 1:33 pm #738921
Thanks, there is a book refered in that article too, which sounds like it is worth a read.
January 23, 2004 at 3:24 pm #738922
January 24, 2004 at 7:22 pm #738923
Info on Brooklyn
Love the name of that paper, it is so super hero!
Check out the linked master plan too:
January 24, 2004 at 10:45 pm #738924
A good Balance between the two articles.
Having read the cheerleaders first I was very sold on the picture, which looked the dogs.
But the second was just a little negative I thought, as it dealt with the denuding of retail core to accomodate office.
That is the beauty of the docklands, the lands are virtually all redundant use so with many areas it is really a case of a little planning gain and a lot of developer gain.
Plus a few singature buildings to put the city on the map. But in the absence of viable transit it could be a terrible mess.
January 25, 2004 at 7:15 pm #738925
excellent guide if you ever wish to visit Manhattan, and get to know the place a little bit better.
January 25, 2004 at 9:39 pm #738926
I’ll bookmark that link for sure.
I think I’ll pay the extra $50 in March and go Continental and take the free stopover via Newark en route. I need my holiday!!!!
Manhatten is very different to New York per se I think, that is why I don’t think one can compare it with Brooklyn, A bit like comparing the Square Mile (on stilts) and Walford.
I think there is a bit of a Canary Wharf opportunity in the Dublin Docklands, but the architecture would need to be a lot better. Don’t get me wrong One Canada place was OK in the Early 90’s but architecture has moved on quite a bit since.
Shanghai is certainly a better model as is Taunusanlage in Frankfurt.
January 26, 2004 at 5:51 pm #738927
What do you think?
Urban decay or poor urban regeneration – it seems to me that Dublin provided a very ideal set of conditions for very poor mass-scale urban regeneration in the past couple of years.
One of the things that I liked about the LUAS Fluid Spaces book by UCD students was that for once, it looked as if someone was thinking about the future of the city, rather than the quick turnover.
Not that all development isn’t designed to make a turnover… I mean, I think of Dublin, Belfast, Limerick, Cork, Waterford and any big port cities – this change of land use thing is a very interesting urban debate – all over the world in fact, post industrial etc, etc, etc.
It would be interesting to think of how many small semi-industrial uses existed in areas around Smithfield and Temple Bar up until the eighties.
I mean, Guinness is just the very last tail end of that and perhaps the containerisation down below – what will happen when you take away all those uses, what has happened…. I think that really is a story about an east/west access and the river.
That unique character-enhancing factor that has shaped many cities.
January 26, 2004 at 6:58 pm #738928
I agree that rivers were the primary dictators of pre 1950 settlement patterns particularly industrial location and schools of Industrial location economics sprung up.
But since the mid 1970’s only two transport modes have been important to industry have become road and more laterly air transport.
I noticed in the previous post to yours an appraiser talking about basic urban land rent theories, such as retailers moving to the suburbs.
He is right but this is only relevant to a point inso much as most of the businesses in the docklands were retail warehousing so the contribution to the city ratesbase was extremely limited as the RV’s (rateable valuations) would have been minimal anyway.
It was made very clear by the EU commission that no favourable tax treatment may be given in the docklands post 2000, so any aspirent Trumps will have to find tenants to pay full charges.
The key to developing Dublin must be to develop high-density buildings within 2kms of the CBD.
Because as it stands companies are opting for the cheaper suburban market becuase in most cases the specs are identical.
Only a higher specification and design can put life back into the docklands. As it stands rents are higher than most competitor cities but design standards are lower.
It would also address the East-West Imbalence as in reality the docklands have not delivered much thus far. The city pretty much ends along an alignment of Grand Canal St- Pearse St- Amiens St -Fairview thus far. Admitedly with two blocks ending at guild St being the exception.
Much more is possible, much higher densities are definitely possible, and only with a rising rates base can DCC deliver the level of service that most other Europeans take for granted. The key is transit only a metro from the docklands to Heuston can integrate the docklands into Dublin properly, only higher density development can support a metro and only higher quality design can justify higher densities. No more Georges dock standard buildings it is time for a few Cathedrals of Commerce. 🙂
January 26, 2004 at 8:17 pm #738929
Which makes the LUAS project the exact opposite of what you are talking about I guess – given the length of track they have built from Belgard to the Red Cow, and all that ‘density of development’ around the M50! ROFL! 🙂
Yes, good post, puts a lot to do with LUAS project in a perspective for me at least. I have travelled along most of the LUAS line at this stage and I found it really difficult to finding anything very dense at all.
The only cathedrals of commerce that I found were in Sandyford Ind. Estate, and that place is like something from the Simpson’s – I was kicked out of dodge, for loitering around with a camera snapping picies of Microsoft HQ on a Saturday! 🙂
“You know this is private property?” (Standing in a public road)
Insert strong inner city Dublin accent too btw, . . .
My own believe, it that if the Docklands was built as you describe with Cathedrals like in Ballymount, you wouldn’t be able to use the public streets their either.
January 26, 2004 at 9:02 pm #738930
Of course, while we can say that AMerican architecture is new compared to Europe sometimes, lets not forget the Louis Sullivan stuff way back, and its influence.
The idea of using Steel and building higher, in the picture one is covered in masonry, the other expressing its material – that must have been really cool in its day – when Mies first used steel as ornament.
Notice how the people are too tall in the image though and it ruins something that was very, very well rendered.
January 26, 2004 at 9:16 pm #738931
I agree with you totally about Sandyford.
The planners in DLR have a lot answer for, bigtime. The Theory according to Dr Brian Hughes is simple most local authorites are sanctioning large scale developments on the edge of their patch. The edge closest to Dublin, therebye other local authorities such as DCC in the Sandyford case have pressure put on their infrastructure. While DLR collect the rates. Before you point the finger at DLR remember that wicklow are doing to DLR in Bray and so on.
What is really needed is a co-ordinated planning strategy that is implemented by a new agency.
But back to the point, I trust the DDDA and DCC to a level I wouldn’t trust any-other LA in Ireland. I mean look at Sligo, with Alan getting the support of Sinn Fein and a mad socialist independent turned old labour called Bree.
I think that high density in the docklands is vastly preferable to the current Sandyford medium density served by LUAS and a motorway. The new park development in leopardstown scares me, the hotel is ok but the clutter of retail warehousing will generate more traffic than Walmart.
What is required are a few Cathedrals and alot of tall 12-18 apartment buildings in the Docklands. As the river views should giver a lift in rental values making better designed buildings viable on the basis of additional marginal income.
January 26, 2004 at 9:30 pm #738932
Yeah, the whole Dundrum thing has to be seen to be believed too. Nice renders of business people walking around open public spaces, but really…. The Leopardstown thing is fairly strange I think. Your point about being on the edge of DCC is about right I think, from my experience of these places.
I guess the image here, of ‘medium scale development’ is something like the development in Sandymount,
the spaces between buildings in Sandymount dis-allowed people to use them, things happening etc – they are policed, camera security dead zones. spaces do not join up in a sequence or order of spaces like in Temple Bar, but on a grander scale.
Notice all the ‘road’ in that image too – very Sandymount.
As one Intel boss said years ago, Only the paranoid survive.
I think one thing that could work in the Docklands, is where spaces become amenities – this was my point about the Convention Centre, that because it brings in hordes of ‘foreigners’ who tend to wander around an awful lot – the open spaces would have to become ‘public’ right from the off.
The absolute worst solution for a Convention centre I could ever imagine, is someplace like Sandymount, where we could not even wander around in the summer evenings after their tour of the convention centre, to clear their heads, before returning to another round two of ‘techno product launchs and geek speak’.
If you had a convention centre in Sandymount, people would be trapped in some glass bubble and not allowed out. So in this sense, the wider spatial strategy you were talking about it needed.
I think the few sucessful things I have seen in Dublin, like this, even though it is only a small thing is the liffey board walk and campshires, how it changed the way people use those spaces.
January 26, 2004 at 9:38 pm #738933
January 28, 2004 at 6:37 pm #738934
BEIJING (AP) – China has abandoned plans to build a high-speed magnetic-levitation railway between Beijing and Shanghai in favor of less expensive conventional trains, the government said Friday through its official media.
January 28, 2004 at 6:59 pm #738935
It seems like a pragmatic approach to use standardised track gauges that can accomodate all the rolling stock I think that TGV/ICE technology delivers sufficient speed.
As those really in a hurry will fly anyway, I don’t know what internal flights cost these days in China but looking at both North and South america $60-100 would cover most 1000-2000kms flights.
I think Maglev is a great concept, but guys like ryanair (ignoring todays 30% plunge) make the viability of sufficiently high fares unrealistic for any great distances.
The cost of maintaining these systems must be astronomical.
I think a DART compatible metro from the docklands to the airport and Heuston would be enough.
It would certainly provide sufficient capacity for much higher densities along it’s routing.
January 29, 2004 at 7:13 pm #738936
January 29, 2004 at 7:15 pm #738937
January 29, 2004 at 8:22 pm #738938
Great article on San Fran, it clearly displays the problems of attempting to directly import a model even if that model is as good as Vancouver.
The SOM drawings are good but they made the same error that Kevin Roche made in Spencer Dock by designing too high a podium. Which clutters the design entirely.
It really is a choice between slender and tall with plazas or much larger footprints at 7-8 stories.
That is the key error of the Heuston gate scheme, I had a good look at the model yesterday, the picture looked better.
January 29, 2004 at 8:59 pm #738939
I have listened to the arguments about sustainability, density and mass transit systems expressed here. Generally speaking though, when Architects tend to design a building, I think that movement factors are at their best, when integrated as part of the solution.
I am referring to the design of public buildings and/or spaces mostly. What architects try to do well.
January 29, 2004 at 10:27 pm #738940
I agree what you are saying about perspective or more to the point; the number of angles that must be examined.
The point about rendering angles was well made, I always try to look at building plans as close to the ground as possible (models in particular) It gives a very different feel to a building and it often gives the only indication of how a building will interact with others.
So roll on the 50:1 size models it would be very interesting looking at the Atrium in Block four being filled.
January 30, 2004 at 5:35 pm #738941
So roll on the 50:1 size models it would be very interesting looking at the Atrium in Block four being filled. [/B]
Is that in the Heuston development?
Well around early to mid 2002, I decided one thing – that I needed to develop some kind of independent ground of my own, upon which to base my ideas and attempts at designing. Only this week I have done a couple of job interviews, and the results have been predictable – ‘oh, if we had a technician, we could do this, we could do that’. Young inexperienced or experienced Technicians seem to always be seen as ‘enablers’ by the profession of architecture. Therefore, it is very hard for a young technician to paint him/herself in a very bad light – since, right off the bat, they seem to have this very positive glowing light or aura surrounding their being.
On the other hand, you put a young architect next to this, and they always appear more like ‘more bad, and very unnecessary dead weight in a ‘system’ which should be well oiled and highly progressive’. That is, built around enabling professionals rather than people who don’t enable – but rather, cause resistance. Now, when you get to experienced architects, that changes more – the experienced architect on a project is rather like a bill gates is in MicroSoft. Or saying, Apple Computer Corp. without Steve Jobs is not actually Apple Computers anymore. You often hear about the ‘direction and focus’ that a famous experienced architect brought to a specific project. Almost like they were the Film directors that get interviewed for movie shows.
I don’t think that the education system for young architects – with its very wide subject approach – helps one much either. I would really like one day, to go for an interview, and have that same ‘appeal’ to a prospective employer as a young architectural technician seems to have today. That is why since 2002, I have worked very consistently towards developing the basic foundation, from which to build a strong independent ‘enabling, designer function’ as a young architect – so that, some prospective employer would view me as a positive addition to the ‘team’. I don’t think this point is actually appreciated by educational staff in our present architectural education institutions.
I quote the example of Ching’s book very frequently, because literally between those covers, is the opportunity for the young prospective architectural designer, to take his/her first steps towards a positive and concrete future as a professional. You mentioned the technique of getting down really low to view drawings or models – I have practiced over the recent past, the notion of seeing, the little tiny people walking around the page! As daft as this may sound, it is still a vast improvement on any other method I have been lumped with down through the years.
On the subject of walking around – It might be a nice idea to start from SCR/Clanbrassil Street junction some day and walk towards Harcourt Street. Interestingly, you pass out two important religious buildings, which have a very strong impact on the spaces they dominate over. I.e. the public street called SCR or Harrington St, or whatever. Then you approach the junction with Camden St. You will notice looming up in the skyline a couple of new large, commerical glass landmarks. It is an interesting experience to partake in, during a nice sunny morning, comparing two old religious buildings of excellent quality and detailing with new commercial landmarks. It just is a good example of landmarks and streets I think. At this scale, you have the sense of the community or a large collective group of people – not just the individual – learning to associate with their environment, by having significant public landmarks to measure progress on foot through space/time.
This is why I tend to argue that space is four dimensional really. As you cannot explain the above phenomena using only 3 dimensions. I mean, if an architect designing a large master plan or public housing competition etc, doesn’t look at space from these points of view – what are these lines and graphics they persist on drawing on the sheet? Are young architects really only dead weight? Excluding of course, the management potential in the job of being an architect later on in the career – I mean, just in the purely design functionality aspect of the young/older architect. Is the design contribution they make completely airy-fairy? Or something rather much more concrete like I have tried to establish for my own utility?
A building in Dublin, just built – the National Gallery of Ireland extension. Well, it is just a great pity that Dublin/Ireland didn’t have buildings like that – like other European cities have had. I mean, so that young prospective architects growing up could establish a relationship with good architecture from the get-go. That ones appreciation and love of something that good could grow with his/her maturity as a spatial designer. I would blame that same, lack of access to really good architecture, as one of the real limiting factors for young Irish architects. No amount of libraries full of magazines change substitute for something real.
To be perfectly honest with you, even if we did have several really good pieces of architecture here – would our approach to architecture education change sufficiently to achieve any benefit? I mean, would we develop awareness in our spatial environment from a young age? I have my doubts, given that we have for so long, done something else.
January 30, 2004 at 6:05 pm #738942
This facility with spatial design, movement and open public space becomes very useful in this sense here:
But like I said, I have rarely or ever seen ideas like this presented in an attractive package in our architectural colleges. I think we could have a real difficulty in this country of being afraid of space even. Unless it is something to do with fighting and arguments over land etc. Bombshell!
January 30, 2004 at 6:20 pm #738943
The Harcourt building on the old Shell garage is a cracker, and looks even better from Harcourt St on the only exposed wall. Good spec and the tenant list reflects that Bank of Am et al.
The other one thats in the Erin Soup ad, is dodgy I think, the circular section is very contrived and as for Iveagh Court the newly refaced one that got magnolia/lime plastic panels. That really comes back to the starting point of this thread about dodgy 1960-70’s development.
If architects thought more about people interacting with buildings as you said; the city would be a very different place.
January 30, 2004 at 6:33 pm #738944
I didn’t really want to express too strong an opinion of those modern buildings myself. But the main point, I was making, is that usually a bunch or architectural student know-it-alls pass out the Shell garage one, and just throw their eyes up to heaven and go ‘ugly thrash’.
But in fairness to the architecture, if you just take the actual time and effort to recognise its context and significance within the environment – then, you can at least begin to build up some real picture of how good/weak a response a building is, in a specific context.
But my fear is that, most people will just reach for the Irish Architect, look at the photography, either go ‘ooh’ or ‘aah’ and just arrive at an opinion based on looking at a magazine, sitting on one’s ass, while drinking coffee, than actually giving things a chance.
Goes back to my point, about this nation here, being ‘afraid’ of space, of walking, of movement or anything like that. We always reach for the Frank McDonald page, the big photo and the few ‘words of wisdom’ which Frank may have cobbled together to sell a paper.
The fact, these ideals are often enshrined in schools of architecture too, is shameful IMHO.
January 30, 2004 at 8:33 pm #738945
One that might interest you:
There are more images linked on at the end of the post to ams.be too.
I suppose this is the direction Sandyford has chosen to go:
January 31, 2004 at 9:47 pm #738946
I think the building on the old Shell garage site looks very good. Good materials good proportion and fits very well with the buildings it surrounds. The lower height beside the Odeon is sympathetic and the shrubs on the terrace give it a very civilised feel.
It glorifies commerce without making an un-necessary intrusion into whats left of the setting.
Different docklands sites would afford greater heights without being intrusive onto historic streetscapes.
February 1, 2004 at 2:54 pm #738947
I guess that area of Dublin has gotten two nice new additions recently with the one at the top of Harcourt Street too.
I mean, new buildings, in old settings without being overly ‘stiff’ about georgian materials etc, etc, etc.
I.e. Getting a technician in 2004 to detail you something, in what he/she interprets as ‘being like’ Georgian construction and detailing.
The opposite to Cathedrals
Those who hope that suburbia is finally growing up and starting to behave itself often cite this much-quoted line: â€œEdge cities mean that density is back,â€ taken from Joel Garreauâ€™s 1991 book Edge City: Life on the New Frontier. Many smart growth proponents who call for higher-density, mixed-use suburbs are especially invested in the idea that maturing edge cities represent a potentially promising future. The reality, however, is that sprawl is backâ€”or, more accurately, that it never went away.
February 1, 2004 at 3:06 pm #738948
There was a plan to build a complex on the old freight yards of the Harcourt rail station. Which are now occupied by the Ericom switch centre on Adelaide Rd and DIT music school on Upper Hatch st.
If it went ahead it would have given a unity between Montague House (the old Dunlop building) and the Harcourt building (the garage). If you examine both of those buildings the heights and front elevations are broadly inline.
A new gang of three would have sprung up, but on a larger scale and with a much higher standard of architecture. (not to say that 1 adelaide rd is bad)
Coming back to increased densities at public transport nodes. Clever six storey development with virtually 100% footprints. But unlike Sandyford built in the right place.
February 1, 2004 at 3:15 pm #738949
Originally posted by Diaspora
There was a plan to build a complex on the old freight yards of the Harcourt rail station. Which are now occupied by the Ericom switch centre on Adelaide Rd and DIT music school on Upper Hatch st.
DIT another building? DIT have some beautiful historic buildings around the city, but I am really beginning to question the notion of ‘Dublin as our campus’. I mean, given the ability of University development uses, to add real variety to urban territories – I mean, places like Trinity college. Imagine Dublin without Trinity college, what would it be? Or is that just too frightening a possibility to even consider it, the type that would give you nightmares? Just thinking of some of the office stuff around molesworth st, kildare st, townsend st, pearse st.
Then there were sites around Christchurch too, and areas of thomas st, which have contributed little to the city at all – because of the way and the uses they got developed with – I mean, when you put a whole college together, and really make something cohesive that generates a kind of identity for a part of a city. I kind of like that development in Angier St to be honest, as that site could have been much worse – developed as blank faced apartments and another island of the urban core, becomes mostly a gated ‘community’.
But at least in that case, DIT pulled something together, and actually renovated a part of the city, is a fairly positive way. Still I would like to see ‘a real campus’ too, something which behaved as a positive urban space, as an outdoor room and a collection point for all DIT students. It doesn’t have that, and that feeling runs through any course you will do in DIT too. You wouldn’t believe the arguments it generates between staff and students, ‘not feeling quite part of anything’.
yeah, I know what kind of an organisation VEC was/is. I works on some levels, but it does seem pretty inefficient and ‘bloathed’ in many other ways. I just always seem to be ‘bumping’ into DIT badges stuck on doors all over the city, like some hobo symbols or something. I question, weither it is justifiable to keep that whole bueracracy afloat – or channel resources into providing something cohesive and more useful? Something infinitely more indentifiable with too – I often think DIT is like one of these DOT bomb companies, which only exist on a web site page.
In another organisation like Burger King, or Subways, or a Cafe chain or some kind, this kind of widespread distribution of your ‘brand or product’ might be a positive advantage. I just question, how that is so with education.
February 1, 2004 at 3:26 pm #738950
Don’t worry about the Adelaide RD building it is far from historic, an orange plastic curtainwalled horror on an elevated site.
Being a DIT alumni I too wish that my ex-college was on a single campus. THere is also quite a bit of land on the aungier st site for redevelopment which would add a lttle more critical mass. Do the National archives really need to be where they are? That site could easily accomodate Mountjoy Sq which is I think the most isolated of all the DITs.
I can’t ever see Grangegorman happening, if the funds wern’t found in 2000 they won’t be found for quite a while to come. It would be much more realistic for the DIT to convert their surface carparks at Bolton St and Aungier St and develop the back of Kevin St.
February 1, 2004 at 3:38 pm #738951
My biggest fear is that – the organisation is totally managed and run by fat-cats who having enjoyed perks for so long now, would find it impossible to ‘just give up their comforts’. I mean, even the door boys in DIT are all part of this one happy establishment. When I went to use the new IT facilities at Rathmines recently, being then a DIT students and living in the Rathmines area, I found I got so much harassement from the ‘power crazy’ doorguys, that I just had to give up my hope of convenience and using that building, even as a study room for a couple of hours. It is like one grand big piece of period architecture, with a couple of DIT badge wearing goons rattling around inside in it. Efficiency or bloath?
Grange Gorman, allowed alot of big wigs in those separate campuses, to feel better about themselves, that they had some grand vision – is like the rubbish bin protests – its only function now for years was to distract people from the fundamental issues, and address some real problems. But that is a very common behavioural trait of organisations that have just grown too wild and weedy down through the years. The DIT model is almost a father-to-son thing at this stage. From both the point of view of students and prospective employment positions. I don’t think I would want to work there anyhow, if I wasn’t part of the family so to speak. Do DIT really need an accomdation/admin department in places like Pembroke St? Or is Cathal Brugha St etc really needed? I mean, if you put all of those ‘separated’ properties together, you would suddenly see ‘all the people employed’ in this monster of an organisation – and what it ‘takes’ to run it. Does it need as many different Libraries as it has? Couldn’t it make one really good one?
I compare the situation to a child that has more toys, than he/she can enjoy/benefit from, but is just too spoilt to lose any and perhaps get their lives back into some kind of suitable, more stream-lined organisation. It is the students who suffer the most at the end of it all – that is the fact. I guess what it really needs is some kind of ‘large organisation doctor’ to come along and wrench away from its grasp some of these self-destructive traits.
February 1, 2004 at 3:53 pm #738952
February 2, 2004 at 7:24 pm #738953
“Very nice renders. I like very much the feeling of the scene…its a beach hotel? I want to go there…” From: Belo Horizonte,Brazil
But you live 5 degrees from the equator
No pleasing some people!!!!!!!
Hardly Cathedrals but a pretty smart low density design solution it would work very well in Tramore
February 2, 2004 at 9:50 pm #738954
Another, with 3 metre people and cars on steroids.
Slightly better I think..
Finally, some south american high rise lov’in.
February 2, 2004 at 10:43 pm #738955
I’m with Dibbers on the first image, it reminds of a building in Lima almost identical built in the 1970’s with aluminium curtain walling that is textured like sheets of corrigated iron.
The second is good a sort of updated ‘deco quarter of South beach Miami’ I like the number of renderings from different angles but I suspect it is entirely residential.
But if you eliminated the balconies it would convert to offices pretty well.
Office 45 psf
Residential 25 psf
Industrial 10 psf
February 3, 2004 at 4:05 pm #738956
what is logistics?
February 3, 2004 at 4:13 pm #738957
Transport, Warehousing and Distribution.
The sector requires an entirely different specification of building which costs more to build, and as a result has higher rental and capital values.
A land use that needs to be kept well away from urban centres. But that without the economy would grind to a halt. The origins of the Sandyford Industrial Estate were mostly distribution projects. As it had a location advantage in its greater accessibility to DunLaoire port.
But as other land markets rose smart owners sold their buildings for redevelopment and most of the former tenants went to either Ballymount or Blancharsdtown.
February 3, 2004 at 4:28 pm #738958
yeah, i get the idea – many small town ‘industrial estates’ by the IDA could be lumped into that catagory too, in spite of being referred to usually as ‘industrial’ estates – they have a lot more to do with distribution and road shipping. Limerick has plenty of that too on its outskirts.
February 3, 2004 at 5:30 pm #738959
I think that is because most of the ‘Advance factories built’ by the IDA in the 1970’s were speculative. ‘Build them and they will come’ type of developments.
Once that strategy was abandoned in favour of grant aiding actual projects like complex pharma plants, the question arose what to do with unwanted low spec factory units.
The market intervened as the only tenants around were logistics providers.
It really proves the point that all commercial development should be market led.
It is clear that a number of Financial services industries demand hi-spec offices they will pay the dockland premiums why not give them cathedrals to commerce?
February 3, 2004 at 5:41 pm #738960
Yes, but getting back to my notion about real experience of environments, real on-the-ground observation of all things to do with environment, architecture etc, etc… like the new urbanism thread, or my post here
I would have to insist, that the mere presence of the IDA business parks on the outskirts of towns did give those towns a diversity, a change of scale, some might even say a scale problem – but nonetheless, it does change them – sort of like the ‘Little Britain’ edgedom debate going on about London these days.
I.e. the opposite to Milton Keynes and ‘planned environments’. Raheen industrial estate in Limerick and other industrial estates around the country have in fact doubled over as recreation amenities in an otherwise mono-tone surburban environment. I like the way nature and open space, by the very nature of Raheen being ‘an industrial estate’ is treated in a different manner, to being trapped into small front gardens in a row.
This is really, my big problem with Sandyford Industrial estate or techno park now too – it doesn’t seem to serve/provide that variation in urban scale/space/environment which Raheen one did to local house residents in Limerick. In fact, if you use the Sandyford Industrial estate for any leisure or walking activity, you could be branded a criminal or something.
Spaces in industrial estates, are maybe not quite as ‘posh’ as this one, here but do still provide the urban environment with some very much needed ‘breathing spaces’ in massive housing suburbias.
Of course, this also has to do with providing suitably ‘scenic’ environments for well-paid ‘creative’ people to walk around during lunch break. Richard Florida I like schemes, in dense urban areas, which try to provide some open public territory too, or rather try to re-claim that by using roofs etc. This entry for instance I don’t honestly know what the brief for Dun Laoire is, but if it was some offices? This would be its park.
February 3, 2004 at 6:02 pm #738961
I think the real success of Raheen has been Michael Dell and the 5000 or so jobs that have sent Limerick up the class economically.
It is clear that no computer plant can compete for space at the centre of a city, but they can almost act like second town centres when on the scale of Dell. As the economic spillover attracts all kinds of busineses from Gyms to creches to retail warehousing for DIY type products.
It is rare to secure projects of that quality and that scale in an Irish context. They are the exception versus the rule I feel.
To plan for a small number of these estates is good planning to adopt them as the prefered development pattern is extremely short sighted.
A strategy is needed to ensure that brownfield development gets priority over edge-city infill such as the conversion of former industrial buildings to offices in places such as Sandyford and parts of Tallaght.
Only central areas can provide the rental values to support the highest standards of design and materials. If sutainable development patterns are to be introduced and higher spec buildings constructed it is only viable by prioritising resources to central areas such as the docklands and Smithfield etc 😎
February 3, 2004 at 6:15 pm #738962
all quite true,
just on my thread of thought,
If you want to work Smithfield and the Docklands at their very best, the whole notion of ‘crowds of people’ being part of the definition of the design problem must be done. How would you propose that people get to or from Smithfield or Docklands, given that Dublin is already moving like molasses, no matter what kind of transport you use. I think that cities thrive or die on the provision or lack of good open spaces connected in a fashion, which allow people to move. I mean, just look at what the north/south axis of pedestrian movement has created in Dublin city over the years. That massive scale and movement of people is part of what cities are all about. Perhaps we have to ‘buy’ a few properties here and there, just to knock them to make more connections and ways for the city to breath properly.
From this article.
Last March, I had the opportunity to meet Peter Jackson, director of The Lord of the Rings trilogy, at his film complex in lush, green, otherworldly-looking Wellington, New Zealand. Jackson has done something unlikely in Wellington, an exciting, cosmopolitan city of 900,000, but not one previously considered a world cultural capital. He has built a permanent facility there, perhaps the world’s most sophisticated filmmaking complex. He did it in New Zealand concertedly and by design. Jackson, a Wellington native, realized what many American cities discovered during the ’90s: Paradigm-busting creative industries could single-handedly change the ways cities flourish and drive dynamic, widespread economic change. It took Jackson and his partners a while to raise the resources, but they purchased an abandoned paint factory that, in a singular example of adaptive reuse, emerged as the studio responsible for the most breathtaking trilogy of films ever made. He realized, he told me, that with the allure of the Rings trilogy, he could attract a diversely creative array of talent from all over the world to New Zealand; the best cinematographers, costume designers, sound technicians, computer graphic artists, model builders, editors, and animators.
February 3, 2004 at 6:20 pm #738963AnonymousInactive
I suppose the O’Connell Street/Henry Street to Grafton Street route and vice versa has alot to do with that.
February 3, 2004 at 6:21 pm #738964
Build the Metro line from Spencer Dock to Pearse Stn to Stephens Green to Christchurch to the Guiness brewery to Heuston.
The development of a station at christchurch would serve the existing Smithfield developments. One at Guinesses would allow the Smithfield development pattern continue westwards.
While providing sufficient transport capacity to free up some of the existing mollasses.
When Tom Phillips presented the currently under construction Smithfield proposal. He used the model of early Italian Plazas with long terraces of 8-10 storey buildings.
Critically the wide plazas provided sufficient space for large crowds to mill around comfortably and also a large recreational space
February 3, 2004 at 6:26 pm #738965
yeah, I will buy that – then you would create something similar to the throngs of office working people who daily march from Baggot St, Pembroke St and Fitzwilliam Sq, Lesson St etc along in front of the Shelbourne over toward Grafton St, and back again. Could be very interesting.
Hey, we are being talked about!
What should really alarm us is that our capacity to so adapt is being eroded by a different kind of competition–the other pincer of the claw–as cities in other developed countries transform themselves into magnets for higher value-added industries. Cities from Sydney to Brussels to Dublin to Vancouver are fast becoming creative-class centers to rival Boston, Seattle, and Austin.
February 3, 2004 at 6:34 pm #738966AnonymousInactive
Garethace, where is that last quote from?
February 3, 2004 at 6:38 pm #738967
Richard Florida article, the man himself:
Click on ‘article’, it is linked.
Creative Class War
How the GOP’s anti-elitism could ruin America’s economy.
In effect, for the first time in our history, we’re saying to highly mobile and very finicky global talent, “You don’t belong here.”
I guess that is how Dublin has scored recently. So what Dispora is saying about commerce and the built environment isn’t a thousand million miles away from the truth.
we are popular with Florida aren’t we now?
For several years now, my colleagues and I have been measuring the underlying factors common to those American cities and regions with the highest level of creative economic growth. The chief factors we’ve found are: large numbers of talented individuals, a high degree of technological innovation, and a tolerance of diverse lifestyles. Recently my colleague Irene Tinagli of Carnegie Mellon and I have applied the same analysis to northern Europe, and the findings are startling. The playing field is much more level than you might think. Sweden tops the United States on this measure, with Finland, the Netherlands, and Denmark close behind. The United Kingdom and Belgium are also doing well. And most of these countries, especially Ireland, are becoming more creatively competitive at a faster rate than the United States.
February 3, 2004 at 6:54 pm #738968
February 3, 2004 at 10:42 pm #738969
Quote “Cities from Sydney to Brussels to Dublin to Vancouver are fast becoming creative-class centers to rival Boston, Seattle, and Austin. They’re doing it through a variety of means–from government-subsidized labs to partnerships between top local universities and industry”
Fact: Between MIT and Harvard campus start ups have created over 1m high end jobs in IT and Biotech alone.
Dublin is not in the same league for three reasons
1. Lack of access to Venture capital
2. Chronic infrastructural deifit notably road and air freight
3. Lack of suitable prestige buildings or buildings capable of serving as top flight corporate headquarters.
The tallest proposed building for Dublin was a 32 storey block of flats, the application was not even considered because it wasn’t completed correctly. It should never have been considered as a runner where it was proposed.
There is no doubt Brian that Bio-tech and IT and the development of top-flighters in these fields hold the key.
But in practice this country’s industrial strategy has run out of ideas. The infrastructural support is not being given to the existing leaders such Intel or Schering Plough.
AMD has just invested $3.2bn in Dresden had the right infrastructure been in place it could and should have come here. 😡
February 3, 2004 at 10:43 pm #738970
Some more on Biotech etc, expect real tech stuff from this forum. . . real investor points of views etc, etc, etc
notice the mention in the article, about the creative classes in music industry too – which ireland has sort of had for a while – U2 comp etc, etc.
Home time! Bye.
February 4, 2004 at 8:31 pm #738971
I liked that article on biotech, no-one can plan for that type of decsion all the same.
I found a new investment in Healthcare in Ireland today though,
Forty new jobs created in Co Meath
Forty new jobs will be created in Ashbourne in Co Meath. The Minister for State, Ivor Callely, said the jobs would be created at Kilbrew Demesne – a health care facility which will provide both short and long-term nursing and residential care.
As I said yesterday the industrial policy has definitely run out of ideas when this type of project makes the news.
Whats next IDA grants for a co-operative selling the Evening Herald at traffic lights?
February 4, 2004 at 8:31 pm #738972
Cross posting 😉
February 7, 2004 at 6:22 pm #738973
Now many new jobs in new wtc? Or old ones for that matter? Terrorism is the anchillaise heel of these developments these days.
This couple of pics here, tends to emphasise the scale of what we are talking about too. Not in a good way, but a very representational way, no less.
February 8, 2004 at 7:30 pm #738974
EU investment in new AMD fabs.
Smart looking development,….. like it could be ddda. Dunno what you think?
February 17, 2004 at 5:33 pm #738975
Outsourcing, the big issue in States.
Click: Anyhow, if you care to wander over to the Americas now, a post which got an interesting response, about Jobs, outsourcing, presidential elections etc, etc, etc.
Just avoid the ‘Norm’ Chomsky bit . . 🙂
Good post here:
Well i think one of the reasons this is big news during this election is because the economy has come back strong but the jobs are not coming with it. Common scapegoat is outsourcing. I cant say it isnt a factor but I cant imagine we have shipped off 10 million jobs in 3 years. Not impossible I suppose but I cant imagine it.
If the jobs start to come around then this issue will be moot.
Dunno what economics is about, but this paragraph gives you some idea, how global the whole thing really has become.
China and Japan are holding the price of the $ up with tons of buying of the $ and in the case of china, pinning the currency to the $. China’s banking system is not yet good enough to handle a floating currency. Regardless, China is growing too fast right now to be sustained. Within a few years they will be forced to change their exchange rate with the $ one way or another.
February 17, 2004 at 6:41 pm #738976
I think everyone was dumbstruck by Bush’s claim that US corporates shipping jobs to China and India was good for the US economy.
More specifically “However, the company said that it has become clear that its strategy to grow its global business through acquisitions is more favourable and successful that constructing a new facility.”
Mergers and acquisitions are back with a vengence this year as depressed prices make them cheaper than new build.
I am still bullish on the GDA if not the rest of the country, it can offer a lot of most of the qualities of London at quite a substantial discount to employers.
London, New York, Singapore and Tokyo are really pulling away as quality world cities in recent years. Places like Frankfurt and Paris are becoming ever more secondary in this globalised game.
If Dublin got its act together with a decent Metro and a few landmark office developments in the docklands it could capitalise on the next wave of mobile capital. Which is really chomsky talk I know but there are always winners as well as losers in every game. :rolleyes:
But if you don’t invest your not at the table, Sandyford will never attract serious front office operations :confused:
February 17, 2004 at 6:53 pm #738977
February 17, 2004 at 7:04 pm #738978
A very negative view of the situation.
I don’t agree with any of it except that the extent of the deficit is worrying and needs correction. Which is very hard to do in an election year without damaging the feel good factor.
Indicators such as the Philedelphia Semiconductor index are showing resilience and Dell released record numbers last week.
The problem I see is a lack of investment on this side of the pond. 😡
February 17, 2004 at 7:16 pm #738979
Absolutely, a total ‘doom’ theory if ever there was one.
God forbid, anyone could claim to simply economics down to that level.
But interesting just to contemplate in another way.
February 17, 2004 at 7:20 pm #738980
Going on that there are’nt enough troops to engage in brush fire control. Not even Joe Higgins would go that far!!!!!!!!!
February 17, 2004 at 7:24 pm #738981
Troops, hmmmm…. at least they have issues. We have bin taxes and smoking bans. 🙁
February 17, 2004 at 7:40 pm #738982
But back to the point, it could be argued that there are great simularities between 1994 and 2004 for the Irish property/construction scene.
There is a bit of vacancy a lot of infrastructural works and the house building sector dominating. Investment is slow but another good year in the US and it could speed up dramatically.
The problem is that unlike 1994 the economy is unable to attract the lower value jobs such as customer service call centres for hotels etc.
The one thing that the economy still has is the lowest corporation tax in the OECD and tarriff free entry to the worlds largest economy (EU) The hope is that companies that anticipate a highly profitable process will locate here. However I doubt that the Sandyford lifestyle is likely to attract the professionals to work in these industries/professional services.
A mixed use high-quality urban quarter is required, if growth is to be delivered.
February 17, 2004 at 8:05 pm #738983
Perhaps you can shed some light upon something for me here. For years in this country we have done the typical irish thing – just provide a very, very limited amount of office space in Georgian terraces in Dublin city. Which haven’t changed since the 1800s.
Then when a shortage of office space comes about, what do we do? Yeah, you’ve guessed it, exactly the same thing as we done with houses – put up the price and keep out the bottom bracket of course. So office space, like residential accomodation achieves this class status like everything else in this country. Everything about Ireland, is tiny in scale and very expensive to boot.
February 17, 2004 at 8:16 pm #738984
Quote “just provide a very, very limited amount of office space in Georgian terraces in Dublin city. Which haven’t changed since the 1800s.”
The advent of the Commercial Chambers in Edwardian times broke the stranglehold of Georgian Dublins grip on office space.
Culturally ‘Commerce’ wasn’t really respectable until the 1920 as such. These chambers became much more widespread in the 1920’s as buildings suchas the Burton Buildings and Shamrock Chambers opened on Dame St and 19 College Green or Pen corner opened also during this decade.
Prior to this Lawyers hung out in the 4 courts or incorporated law Society and practiced from home. There was no real auditing process but more tax collected. Banks were fortressess and all thew stock brokers were within a block of Anglesea St.
Industrial giants such as Guiness’s had their offices on the production site.
The Bull run in US equities between 1925-29 changed all that as greed became fashionable in public for the first time.
De Velera’s economic policies protected the built heritage until about the 1960’s when supplying mohair suits became the best earner in town.
February 17, 2004 at 8:23 pm #738985
In parallel to that of course, the house was changing too. Where once, that said lawyer could have had a home office, with a servant and a cook to provide tea for clients, regular meals and cleaning duties etc, etc. The idea of the servant in the house, was beginning to fade out.
Sherlock homes and Doctor Watson – two men in a room together all day long? 🙂 Now I guess they would be more likely to be housed in a high tech Sandyford office in front of computers all day long.
February 17, 2004 at 8:32 pm #738986
Quote “I guess they would be more likely to be housed in a high tech Sandyford office in front of computers all day long.”
Before they both spend at least 90 mins fighting their way through traffic to their houses in places like Rathcoole and Kinnegad.
The great thing about working in a town centre are all the amenities on your doorstep. Friday evening comes in Sandyford and because you are driving your options become limited.
While the commercial office rates are good for Dunlaoire the reduced commercial retail/leisure rating base must be a cause for concern.
February 17, 2004 at 8:37 pm #738987
Good explanation about the history of commercial rental space in Dublin btw, that is a very, very, very useful observation to have about Dublin city.
I don’t have a clue what a rating base is – I guess that is because I have restricted myself to just designing architecture all my life. 🙂
Drop in here for a sec, if you want:
See exactly what I mean. 🙂
February 17, 2004 at 9:38 pm #738988
That thread is indicative of the multi-disciplinary nature of the built environment field these days.
Many skills sets that have little appreciation of the others process of thought. But like everything else discussion is the only way to bring it forward.
I’m sure that a QS wouldn’t have been long spotting the balcony floor specs and adding up its effect on the overall cost.
The rating base is an expression used in local government economics to descibe the total number of buildings that are occupied by various businesses upon which commercial rates can be levied by a local authority. 😉
February 17, 2004 at 9:56 pm #738989
February 21, 2004 at 6:09 pm #738990
March 31, 2004 at 10:06 pm #738991
Glimpse of Ireland’s bright future (swelling up with pride) …. reminds me of Sandford… Luas stops etc, etc…. 🙂
April 3, 2004 at 12:33 pm #738992
wake up illinois! 🙂
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.