Ireland’s Best Architectural Practice
- This topic has 31 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Don’t get this wrong – this thread isn’t claiming or out to claim which is or which isn’t the best architectural in Ireland – but is merely interested in pointing out firms with an individualistic edge, and is out to push the bar just that little higher.
Undoubtedly, each person will vary in taste and preference, so suggested firms don’t neccessarily have to be in agreeance with the opinions of others, but it’ll still be interesting to see what is considered ‘edgy’ by each person’s proposal.
Below are links to firm website’s which I find interesting – I would be glad to hear the opinions of others on this, and perhaps maybe if they could forward their opinions.
A special emphasis should be placed on the ‘up-and-coming’ — but it’s not exclusive.
-
-
-
@lexington wrote:
There! Problem solved. 🙂 Sorry bout that.
Lexington – like you say, this forum isn’t likely to meet consensus, but …..!
Anyway, Keep an eye on a practice called Hackett and Hall – http://www.hackett-hall.com. I’ve worked with both of them and, given the right Client, they’ll do some great stuff.
-
I’ve seen that building in Cahirsiveen…. it’s just missing a kitchen sink… how about… http://www.architectstm.com/
-
-
@Rockflanders wrote:
Gotta love that – “given the right client”.
Any chance of an elaboration?
Serious question!If architects don’t fund the projects themselves – in itself a very rare occurence – they are dependent on a Client, of which there are many types. Money alone will not guarantee a nice building. Architecture alone does not guarantee it either. Some of the best buildings around are produced by talented architects, not necessarily in control of a large budget. I think my definition of an ideal client is one who is able to impart a detailed and comprehensive brief to the architect at the outset. The Architect must then have the skill to analyse this brief and, if you like, become the client and to agree a budget that will achieve everyone’s goal. The Client needs to feel that they can take a step back while the architect needs to impart a confidence in a client that they will get what they essentially want – there is nothing worse than a meddling, indecisive client. Similarly, there is nothing worse than an arrogant, diffident or lazy architect. The crux of the matter is good designs result where client and the architect are on the same wavelength when it comes to style, flair and the desire to produce something different. These clients are very difficult to find, epecially when you’re starting out on your career , and more so for the small scale projects you will inevitably be doing.
-
For domestic work in Dublin,
http://www.box.ieWhat does anyone else think?
-
-
Agreed. Their projects look vey nice indeed.
-
@burge_eye wrote:
Anyway, Keep an eye on a practice called Hackett and Hall – http://www.hackett-hall.com. I’ve worked with both of them and, given the right Client, they’ll do some great stuff.
I agree. The possibility of a young and free-thinking small practice to break out of the same shitty N.I. rut looks strongest with H+H right now.
*j*
-
and these guys too are producing some good quality norther irish arch… 😮
-
@burge_eye wrote:
If architects don’t fund the projects themselves – in itself a very rare occurence – they are dependent on a Client, of which there are many types. Money alone will not guarantee a nice building. Architecture alone does not guarantee it either. Some of the best buildings around are produced by talented architects, not necessarily in control of a large budget. I think my definition of an ideal client is one who is able to impart a detailed and comprehensive brief to the architect at the outset. The Architect must then have the skill to analyse this brief and, if you like, become the client and to agree a budget that will achieve everyone’s goal. The Client needs to feel that they can take a step back while the architect needs to impart a confidence in a client that they will get what they essentially want – there is nothing worse than a meddling, indecisive client. Similarly, there is nothing worse than an arrogant, diffident or lazy architect. The crux of the matter is good designs result where client and the architect are on the same wavelength when it comes to style, flair and the desire to produce something different. These clients are very difficult to find, epecially when you’re starting out on your career , and more so for the small scale projects you will inevitably be doing.
I very much agree, however i find that the right architects are very hard to find. At the end of the day it is the Architect providing the service for payment. The client is not getting paid for the work, he is spending a lot of money in fact and if he wants to be lazy, indecisive, arrogant then so be it. I think a lot of Architects today think they are the client as you mentioned above which leads to difficulties. If this happened in any other service industry it would not be acceptable. Can you imagine a waitress telling you that you should like the food even if you dont?!!
-
@Rockflanders wrote:
I very much agree, however i find that the right architects are very hard to find. At the end of the day it is the Architect providing the service for payment. The client is not getting paid for the work, he is spending a lot of money in fact and if he wants to be lazy, indecisive, arrogant then so be it. I think a lot of Architects today think they are the client as you mentioned above which leads to difficulties. If this happened in any other service industry it would not be acceptable. Can you imagine a waitress telling you that you should like the food even if you dont?!!
hmmmmmmmmmm. food analogy time. ok then. Are you an architect by the way? just wondering as, if you are, you’ll know that to use the phrase “any other service industry” is fraught with danger as “any other service industry” would not provide such a large amount of service “on spec”. but
to make things fair, let’s assume this “restaurant” is a weird one where there’s no menu. The Client has to describe to the waitress what they want. Let’s assume they do so.
Let’s assume the waitress brings the order exactly as the client requires. The client doesn’t like it – too many peas. They have a chat and the waitress brings the new dish. The same thing happens. The process is repeated for about, say, 2 years. Eventually the client may get the dinner he requires, or he may have left without paying. The waitress may have ignored the wishes and brought any old crap, in which case the client is justified. If, however, the waitress has done everything they can, the restaurant has probably gone bust.
If we’re going to move this into other service industries, let me ask you a question. How many solicitors do you know who accept the following proposition:
“I want you to draft me a letter, based on what I tell you. I’ll continue to get you to redraft the letter, even though I have no legal training whatsoever. When I think the letter is right, regardless of whatever advice you give me, then I’ll allow you to lodge this with the other party. If we win, I’ll pay you.”
-
-
-
@burge_eye wrote:
If we’re going to move this into other service industries, let me ask you a question. How many solicitors do you know who accept the following proposition:
“I want you to draft me a letter, based on what I tell you. I’ll continue to get you to redraft the letter, even though I have no legal training whatsoever. When I think the letter is right, regardless of whatever advice you give me, then I’ll allow you to lodge this with the other party. If we win, I’ll pay you.”
Very very very well said. Great analogy.
Only quibble I would have is with you comparing architects to solicitors …..at all…..in any way shape or form -
your analogy above seems to be referring to a competition. (If we win, I’ll pay you),
Surely then it is the competition authority that gives the brief, not the client?
My point was about architects who refuse to stick to the brief, need to be constantly reined in, always know better than the judges what will win, and wont work no foal no fee. And lose.And by the way i only know two solicitors who will do a letter like that. 😉
-
Rockflanders wrote:your analogy above seems to be referring to a competition. (If we win, I’ll pay you),
Surely then it is the competition authority that gives the brief, not the client?
My point was about architects who refuse to stick to the brief, need to be constantly reined in, always know better than the judges what will win, and wont work no foal no fee. And lose.And by the way i only know two solicitors who will do a letter like that. ]
Not really – it was a legal “win”. I was referring to the increasing willingness for architects to accept the client paying “on receipt of a successful planning application” – Clients who repeatedly change the brief, need to be constantly badgered for money and always know better than the architect – the Lawrence Llewelyn Bowen effect – are equally infuriating
Anyway, my original point was that good clients and good architects will produce good buildings. If one or other is crap, then the building will probably be crap too. So you’re right, I’m right, we all win a prize
Tungstentee – Funnily enough, I also worked with Alan, albeit briefly ( I was a bit of a mercenary in my youth) and you’re right, he’s top drawer. His time with Hopkins served him well.
-
@Rockflanders wrote:
your analogy above seems to be referring to a competition. (If we win, I’ll pay you)
Depending on the project, I will strike an accord with the architect involved where a basic fee is alloted to them for the design work, with a subsequent ‘bonus’ or ‘fuller fee’ is provided on successful grant of planning. If I win, I pay. 😀
-
One of my favourite up-and-coming architectural practices are Deady Gahan Architects (DGA) based in Little Island in Cork. Set-up by 2 former RKD McCarthy Lynch architects, David Deady and Eamonn Gahan, the fledgling firm have already made a name for themselves with their own distinctive style.
See images below. May include some of these on the thread Cork Architecture: Interesting Lesser Knowns .
Redeveloped Credit Union – Passage West, Cork – note cladding
St. Paul’s Garda Credit Union – extension and refurbishment of existing 18th Century House.
New Medical Centre in planning for the Lee Road (former Bowen Construction HQ) -
Lexington,i am aware that “everyone is entitled to their own opinion” but im worried that people may come on this site who know little about architecture, and see what is posted above as being Ireland’s Best Architecture. It is quite clear that the examples above are no more (or less) than painfully mediocre and unadventurous modern architecture, driven by a budget matched in size only by the inovation use to execute the scheme. This is not the best architecture ireland can produce by any stretch of the imagination.
-
-
-
@what? wrote:
Lexington,i am aware that “everyone is entitled to their own opinion” but im worried that people may come on this site who know little about architecture, and see what is posted above as being Ireland’s Best Architecture. It is quite clear that the examples above are no more (or less) than painfully mediocre and unadventurous modern architecture, driven by a budget matched in size only by the inovation use to execute the scheme. This is not the best architecture ireland can produce by any stretch of the imagination.
I don’t believe people are in the mostly stupid – at the beginning of this thread, I did state that this is not necessarily about Ireland’s best practice, but about the practices’s that members feel are worth noting. Clearly what speaks to one, doesn’t speak to the other. I am merely posting practices which I like, and I believe I am entitled to do so. Part of this forum is to leave such topics open to debate – and that’s what I would like to see. Why don’t you post the links, or images, you feel best represent prime Irish architecture? Rather than knocking the opinions of others, post your preferences, I am most anxious to see them as I believe it will open up the scope of such debate further – and that’s a good and healthy thing.
I must ask Paul Clerkin if he would be willing to open up a Poll on a particularly date regarding this – if perhaps each interested member is allowed post up to 5 of their favourite examples of contemporary Irish Architecture (and the firms behind them) – and say, in a month, a poll is opened for a week to allow persons vote on the practice they best feel is Ireland’s current Best Architectural Practice for 2005. Is it possible Paul?
So what? contribute, what would you believe best represents the flame for Ireland’s highest architectural standards in the modern day? 😮
-
Genuinely interested in hearing What’s? view on what practices are representative of the best that’s out there. No need to batten down hatches. I know nothing of any of the practices above apart from Box and I would still think that their residential practice is interesting.
Let the dialogue begin….. -
I do not want to get into a protracted argument over what right someone has to attack someone else’s opinion on a discussion website. Despite the fact the title was rescinded in the first line of the forum the fact remains it is called “Ireland’s Best Architectural Practice”. As someone seriously interested in Irish Architecture I am justified in expressing my disgust at commercially driven buildings with little to no architectural integrity being proposed publically as the best Architecture this country can produce, just as a serious musician for example, would feel violated at the suggestion that Ronan Keating is the pinnacle of Irish Music . The question is not which architect can provide the best service to a client. Good architecture is not mere facilitation.
It is my opinion that O’Donnell Tuomey are the best practice currently working in Ireland. They bring a gravitas and poetry to their better projects which goes beyond simply regurgitating modernism.
amongst a healthy group of younger practices who are doing interesting work i would say Hasset Ducatez and Tom de Paor particularily stand out as having something interesting to say.
-
@what? wrote:
It is my opinion that O’Donnell Tuomey are the best practice currently working in Ireland. They bring a gravitas and poetry to their better projects which goes beyond simply regurgitating modernism.
I agree O’Donnell Tuomey are an insightful firm, but they wouldn’t be my choice for best practice – but that’s okay because that’s your opinion. And I’m not going to spear it. But that’s kind of what I for one would like to see on this thread – opinions! We can all judge later. Thanks for that. 😮
Architecture in this country however, like it or loathe it, is predominantly commercial/owner driven – every so often a gem makes its face known, but I don’t accept that these buildings represent the extent of Irish talents either. Far from it.
-
heres a good place to start lookin if your trin’ to find them lexington.
-
Lexington, do you think we should applaud mediocrity?
-
@what? wrote:
Lexington, do you think we should applaud mediocrity?
I think what you and many others may look for in architecture isn’t what I and others may look for in it. But the value someone places on opinion can’t be discounted by others merely because they classify it as mediocre. It would be a contradiction to do so, as determination of preferences is formed by opinion as well. If you believe something to be mediocre, I can’t argue with that, but it doesn’t mean you’re right. Likewise, I would ask you to provide the same mutual respect.
Many of the architects I know see ingenuity and beauty in structures I quite frankly think are an eyesore – but they look at it from a professional, technical perspective. What they see may be indeed innovative from that point of view – but it doesn’t mean I have to like it. Sure I appreciate technical innovation, but what I seek from architecture is rooted in a client/investor perspective blended with personal tastes. Quite often, economics may have a greater dictation over the outcome of a project than preference and as such, a compromise must be found. A good architect seeks a way to maximise the aesthetics of a project given a limited or designated budget – quite often, it is such limits that inspire architects and engineers to innovate. I have always believed architecture should be about enhancing the aesthetics of a project and its associated home – but for me, architecture has to do those things, given a budget. With a blank cheque, I’m sure many of Ireland’s existing structures may have been vastly different.
A good example of perspective is the Victoria Mills development in Cork designed by Derek Tynan & Associates (see his website http://www.dtarch.com). I, personally believe that it is among Ireland’s most horribly designed projects for many many years – however, when I talk to many architects, the rave on about it. So, in answer to your question, mediocre is sometimes a matter of perspective. However, there are many common projects that are clearly lazy and uninspired from an architectural professional view-point and a client/public view-point ~ such commonality should indeed seek to restrict such design implementation. It is true, some architects are just plain lazy – and its more a matter of the quick buck rather than a dedication to the principals and progression of the profession. Out there, in the domain, many architectural practices are trying their damn best to innovate, inspire and create – to add and help revolutionise ideas about architecture. I don’t think there’s a choice really in whom we should be applauding when we weigh these camps up against one another.
-
I believe that certain pieces of architecture communicate amongst other things innovation, progression, an understanding of their place in history and culture, an attempt to say something either quietly or with force but above all integrity of intent. This is architecture of quality
bog standard curtain-walled envelopes around an apathetically arranged series of spaces does not communicate anything but the laziness/ greed of the architect and client.
of course every building cannot be great. we need these quick fixes for the economy. but they are not good architecture.
cheapness is not an admirable quality. The provision of quality at a low cost is. Much of the best architecture costs less per m2 than the usual developments we see all around us. this is down to the ingenuity of the designer rather than simplification of the project.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
