grrrrrrrrr
- This topic has 62 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 23 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
The problem isn’t the bridge. The problem is knackers. London doesn’t have a problem with people tightroping across the Milennium Bridge.
The idea that children should be sat in a classroom, told not to move or speak for most of the day, repulses me. Kids should be active, learing from their mistakes. If some people had their way (not mentioning certain people on this forum) we would be locked into the nanny state, kids wouldn’t play, people wouldn’t drink too much etc….
Have you never done something just for fun? Sometimes silly and dangerous things are fun. Man would never have invented planes or climbed Everest if it hadn’t been for people disregarding the danger element. People need real life experiences to understand how to interact in society, its no good just telling them its bad to do things.
You are just pi**ed off because you think the pretty bridge will be ruined because of the local kids. Well if the bridge is ruined its due to a design oversight.
Lets call this item no. one on the snag list.
I don’t think we really need a psychology lesson, do we……but bridges are for traffic, playgrounds are for children and orchards are for robbing.
This is all getting very personal and hot tempered… but I have to agree with the point that the bridge is not meant to be climbed. If people choose to put their safety at risk by climbing it then it is a social issue not a design issue. And the fact that they are some one little darlings makes no odds – they shouldn’t be ‘interacting’ with the bridge in this way.
Its like that other favourite topic…. Le Spire. The spire can be grafittied…. if people choose they can walk up to it and spray it with paint. But they should not. Its not a design issue if they do, its a social issue as in lack of respect for one’s surrounding.
Also hate that inner city/ outer city class crap… a scumbag is a scumbag whether he lives in town or in D4.
Perhaps there’s been a bit of a digression, the issue should not be about so- called knackers or whether we should lock children up!! or what the ethics are for architects to even entertain such theories!.
Its no secret that I do not like this bridge but however much we scaremonger and moan the population of inner city Dubiln is no worse than many other capital cities in my experience.
Therefore if a problem like this presents itself almost as soon as the thing is up and open then the responsibility must lie with the design and the designer.
Come on.Here’s psychology at work here now …..you don’t like the bridge hence you’re argument of ‘it’s not the childrens fault but the designer’ .
There’s a level in design at which public responsibility stops. Otherwise, we’ll end up with a city with guard rails everywhere, continually reminding us that we’re so ignorant that we can’t be trusted to look after our own safety. This sort of pattern repeats itself so often in Irish society. Is there nothing we can be proud of without people spoiling it for us? If kids fall into the Liffey, it won’t be the State’s fault – it’ll be theirs.
If Dublin did get, say, Foster’s Millennium Bridge, people would probably call for caging so that kids wouldn’t walk on the cables.
I agree with StephenC: it’s a social issue, not a design issue.
I’m all for public responsibility in architecture but this has gone too far.
i think people are missing the point here… nobody is suggesting that we should lock kids up for being naturally curious/ adventurous. However, it is not the problem of the architect or the corporation if these children decide against common sense to climb the bridge, and they should not be forced to change the design for this reason.
i say let them climb on it if they want….there is no need to do something extreme like change the design to stop them. i see kids climbing on bridge walls everyday on my way home from work, yet i dont see any newspaper articles about that… this story simply emerged beacause it is a high profile, newly opened bridge. people will forget about it soon enough
Originally posted by GregF
Here’s psychology at work here now …..you don’t like the bridge hence you’re argument of ‘it’s not the childrens fault but the designer’ .Actually I drew attention to the fact to emphasise the opposite.
Anyway I could use the same logic for you if you like the design. Its a bit of a nonsensical aurguement.As for social problem v design problem, this is a fairly big fuck up for it to be the publics fault entirely. And I don’t buy it. Like I said, its a grey area but in this instance the man just didn’t think the thing out.
Na….. if there was a major fault with the bridge I’d criticize it…….but there is not.
It is a social problem instead.
Personal prejudices should not get in the way of forming opinions either.
The arch like structures have continously been used in most of Calatrava’s bridges around the world….yet one never hears of complaints of people using them as slides. Maybe because there is an element of urban respect that exists in those societies….which we lack somewhat here in Ireland.
We Irish are somewhat new to urban living I suppose when compared to other societies….. and social deprivation too is a factor for this disrespectfullness…….but irresponsible actions by people should not be defended so vehemently on such grounds.Disrespectful to Calatrava????? WTF?
Anyway since when did design begin and end with whether the thing stands up and looks pretty? You have more of a responsibility than that!
As for not hearing about similar problems with other designs.
It seems in the course of this bridge’s contruction there has been alot of stuff brought to light that we didn’t know about this designer.At the end of the day I don’t think they should alter the bridge at all. If you get hurt its your own tough luck (put up a sign so the can’t get sued or something) but its a failure in urban design and it should be considered a failure for the architect.
Jesus your’re right …..maybe they should have designed it like the boring and miserly Frank Sherwin bridge up the river.
children. stop it.
the point has been made that it seems some people on this forum would like a nanny state where kids are locked up and made sit down, ppl dont drink etc.
what kind of nanny state would it be if every climbable object were to be gaurded against? why should the overriding concept of a design for public space be to make it litiation proof? the first fool to fall of that bridge will make a fortune and then it’ll be spoiled for everyone. it should be a sueable offence to sue a person for your own stupidity.
anyone read michael moores “stupid white men”? hes right about this country and others like it outside the u.s. we’re going to shit
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
